Option 1) Openly accessible reusable container system that reduces plastics use and overall is a benefit to the environment Option 2) This is a thinly veiled market lock-down campaign designed to...
Option 1) Openly accessible reusable container system that reduces plastics use and overall is a benefit to the environment
Option 2) This is a thinly veiled market lock-down campaign designed to require a particular brand-container combination to stave off the generics which are hurting the brand world for consumables.
Wonder which option
Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Danone, Mars Petcare, Mondelēz International and others
are going to choose? Because the company that doesn't believe water is a human right is just FULL of good intentions... scum that should be anti-trusted into the goddamn dirt.
To be fair, my understanding is that it is more options 1.... The company which launched "Loop", TerraCycle from what I can tell is an independent recycling company. Sure, the morally-bankrupt...
To be fair, my understanding is that it is more options 1.... The company which launched "Loop", TerraCycle from what I can tell is an independent recycling company.
Sure, the morally-bankrupt multinationals are the ones to have signed on, but I'd hope that it isn't necessarily at the exclusion of other companies. Let's be honest, having this service available for locally-produced products made by small independent businesses is great and all, but if you really want to have the biggest impact you've got to target the big brands which the majority of people are using.
This is a step in the right direction.
I don’t understand why the focus on moving heavy bottles and fancy packaging around if we are mail ordering though. The whole idea behind product packaging is so it looks enticing on the shelf to...
I don’t understand why the focus on moving heavy bottles and fancy packaging around if we are mail ordering though.
The whole idea behind product packaging is so it looks enticing on the shelf to make you want to buy it. If I’m buying online though, it’s the product page that entices me, not the bottle it comes in. And if you’ve locked me into a brand and just want me to re-up every time I run out, why not just let me keep my stuff in whatever kind of jar or tube I want and just ship the product to me in a biodegradable bag or something? Why go through the effort of shipping aluminum bottles back and forth and dealing with the attrition that is sure to come from all that shipping?
The delivery van has to go back to the warehouse at the end of the day. After every delivery they fill the just emptied space with your old containers. Start the day with a van full of product,...
The delivery van has to go back to the warehouse at the end of the day. After every delivery they fill the just emptied space with your old containers. Start the day with a van full of product, end with a van full of empty containers. No extra trips were made.
Heavy duty containers have weight. Weight costs energy to transport. Cleaning them takes time and effort. Moving stuff generally involves also damaging stuff in handling so the bottles themselves...
The delivery van has to go back to the warehouse at the end of the day. After every delivery they fill the just emptied space with your old containers. Start the day with a van full of product, end with a van full of empty containers. No extra trips were made.
Heavy duty containers have weight. Weight costs energy to transport. Cleaning them takes time and effort. Moving stuff generally involves also damaging stuff in handling so the bottles themselves will have some rate of attrition.
Moreover, cylindrical bottles and custom containers of varying shapes don't stack neatly, meaning you can fit less volume of product per truckload, requiring more trucks, more warehouse space, more labor involved in packing, etc. Also, needing to ship around and track inventory on various containers of stuff means a lot more logistical effort for the middle-man in receiving things from the producers before sending them off to the consumer. It would be a lot easier for them to manage if they were receiving one giant vat of product that they use to fill standardized or disposable containers that they send off.
All of these are reasons why it's less efficient to move individually labelled, custom product containers than it would have been to just send you stuff in nondescript, interchangeable jars or disposable bags.
What about those of us who do not buy our groceries online? I don't find ordering groceries online to be very convenient. It's much simpler to go to the supermarket when it suits me, rather than...
What about those of us who do not buy our groceries online? I don't find ordering groceries online to be very convenient. It's much simpler to go to the supermarket when it suits me, rather than having to wait around for a delivery person who may or may not arrive within a specified window of a few hours - because unlike many other products one can buy online, groceries can't just be left in the mailbox or on the doorstep until you come home and unpack them. Ice cream, for instance, wouldn't survive being left on the doorstep very long.
I note that it's only high-end expensive products being used in this trial. I hope they intend to extend this to cheap products as well.
I think a better alternative would be to get the supermarkets involved as well as the manufacturers. I buy a product from a supermarket, take it home, use the product, then return the empty package to a re-using bin at the supermarket next time I go shopping.
A small dairy near me does this with one of the small markets. Since I was a kid, we would buy their milk in glass jars. They have a $1-2 deposit on the bottle the first time you buy, but it rolls...
A small dairy near me does this with one of the small markets. Since I was a kid, we would buy their milk in glass jars. They have a $1-2 deposit on the bottle the first time you buy, but it rolls over as long as you bring the empty back.
We have one of these near me as well. In fact, I just bought some yesterday. Since they're a local creamery, it's definitely listed at a premium, even with the glass bottle return taken into...
We have one of these near me as well. In fact, I just bought some yesterday. Since they're a local creamery, it's definitely listed at a premium, even with the glass bottle return taken into account.
I would love to bring empty glass containers to the supermarket and fill them with milk fountain machines, and this is coming from someone who regularly drinks 2 gallons of milk a week by himself.
There's at least two that do that in Northern California, too -- Strauss Creamery and Nutcher Milk, from Petaluma and Modesto respectively, appear to have an agreement with stores that distribute...
There's at least two that do that in Northern California, too -- Strauss Creamery and Nutcher Milk, from Petaluma and Modesto respectively, appear to have an agreement with stores that distribute their products to do the same thing. I think the deposit is $4 for each, at least at Nugget Market.
This thread has just turned into bickering between people who completely and fundamentally disagree. There's no value in continuing; everybody's going to keep getting upset, and nobody's going to...
This thread has just turned into bickering between people who completely and fundamentally disagree. There's no value in continuing; everybody's going to keep getting upset, and nobody's going to change their mind.
Oh yikes. I can't take any article on environmentalism seriously when it's advocating consumption of animal products. It's really easy to make oat milk or nut milks at home and they work perfectly...
Oh yikes. I can't take any article on environmentalism seriously when it's advocating consumption of animal products.
It's really easy to make oat milk or nut milks at home and they work perfectly fine in cereal, coffee, etc. No plastic at all needed...
It's not like these two are the only options. I'd rather they don't do it at all. Should we advocate something bad just because it's slightly better than the alternative?
It's not like these two are the only options. I'd rather they don't do it at all.
Should we advocate something bad just because it's slightly better than the alternative?
Absolutely. Telling someone to just stop having milk is unlikely to go anywhere. Telling someone to instead get their milk in a better way has a chance. Never let perfect be the enemy of good.
Should we advocate something bad just because it's slightly better than the alternative?
Absolutely. Telling someone to just stop having milk is unlikely to go anywhere. Telling someone to instead get their milk in a better way has a chance. Never let perfect be the enemy of good.
Disagree. Nobody argues the perfect/good thing when it's about issues like littering etc. I think going at it like this is more likely to breed complacency and make people stop at a place where...
Disagree. Nobody argues the perfect/good thing when it's about issues like littering etc. I think going at it like this is more likely to breed complacency and make people stop at a place where they're still doing way more harm than they could be, because they feel like they're already doing enough and don't have the motivation to change.
Don't get me wrong, activism (I use this term loosely) like this is of course effective on some people, but we also need people pushing how it isn't enough - I've talked to a lot of people about this and there's a huge number (me included) where the "reductarian" approach never worked long-term (because if it's ok sometimes, it's easy to fall into the trap of telling yourself it's ok other times, and eventually all the time) and strict refusal is the only viable way to make a change.
The perfect/good argument does exist with littering. The current solution in most of the world is to provide litter bins but the perfect solution would be to have no litter bins and for people to...
The perfect/good argument does exist with littering. The current solution in most of the world is to provide litter bins but the perfect solution would be to have no litter bins and for people to not produce rubbish that needs to be thrown out. Bins are a compromise.
The emphasis is on advocating bad things. There's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk. So if you say "hey here's a better way of getting cow's milk" you're right, it's better, but...
The emphasis is on advocating bad things.
There's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk. So if you say "hey here's a better way of getting cow's milk" you're right, it's better, but it's still bad when plant milks is an alternative.
That's simply not true. Factory farming might not be the solution, but there are ethical and sustainable ways to source cow's milk. It would make cow's milk harder to obtain, rarer, and more...
There's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk.
That's simply not true. Factory farming might not be the solution, but there are ethical and sustainable ways to source cow's milk. It would make cow's milk harder to obtain, rarer, and more expensive - but it's possible to do.
It's straight up unethical though, it puts the cow under an immense amount of stress and the dairy industry is responsible for about as much animal death as the meat industry
It's straight up unethical though, it puts the cow under an immense amount of stress and the dairy industry is responsible for about as much animal death as the meat industry
If I put a cow in a big pasture, and let it roam free, and eat grass whenever and however it chooses, and then milk it once a day by hand... how am I putting it under an immense amount of stress?...
If I put a cow in a big pasture, and let it roam free, and eat grass whenever and however it chooses, and then milk it once a day by hand... how am I putting it under an immense amount of stress?
I already said that factory farming is not the solution. That's not ethical or sustainable. But it's also not the only way to source cow's milk.
Okay so first of all, a cow has to of been pregnant recently to produce milk, like any other mammal. So this means you have to keep impregnating the cow (usually done with the farmers fist on...
Okay so first of all, a cow has to of been pregnant recently to produce milk, like any other mammal. So this means you have to keep impregnating the cow (usually done with the farmers fist on something called a "rape rack" Google it) once the calf is born it's taken away from the mother because you dont want that calf drinking that tasty tasty milk that is definitely for humans, so you take the calf away and if it's male, kill it and if it's female you subject it to the same torture as it's mother. Cows form a really strong bond with their young (like most mammals) and when you tear a young calf away from its mother the emotional trauma is a pretty big deal for the cow, they can loose their voice calling out to their young for days. So yes they fucking suffer, even in your so called "big pasture"
Fine. We wait until the cow gets pregnant naturally, and then milk it (while making sure not to deprive the calf). We might only get a few litres of milk that way, but it is possible to obtain...
Fine. We wait until the cow gets pregnant naturally, and then milk it (while making sure not to deprive the calf). We might only get a few litres of milk that way, but it is possible to obtain cow's milk ethically and sustainably - which is the point I was originally making.
You assume it's black and white, all or nothing... but it's not.
That doesn't solve the 2nd point I mentioned. And do you really think doing it this way is more realistic (for most people) than simply buying plant milk? Morality is actually black and white,...
That doesn't solve the 2nd point I mentioned. And do you really think doing it this way is more realistic (for most people) than simply buying plant milk?
Morality is actually black and white, though. Either you're doing unnecessary harm, or you're not.
Who's talking about realistic? I'm merely trying to make the point that the absolutist extremist statement that "there's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk" is untrue. There are...
And do you really think doing it this way is more realistic (for most people) than simply buying plant milk?
Who's talking about realistic? I'm merely trying to make the point that the absolutist extremist statement that "there's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk" is untrue. There are ethical and sustainable ways to source cow's milk. They might not supply the world's demand for cow's milk, but that's not my point. My point is that those ethical and sustainable methods exist: it's not all or nothing.
Alright, then assume there are indeed ethical and sustainable ways to do it. What does this conclusion add to the discussion how we solve the current problem we're facing?
Alright, then assume there are indeed ethical and sustainable ways to do it.
What does this conclusion add to the discussion how we solve the current problem we're facing?
It adds the perspective that absolutist statements are probably wrong and generally useless. It shows that the world doesn't operate in only black and white, but includes shades of grey. It...
Exemplary
It adds the perspective that absolutist statements are probably wrong and generally useless. It shows that the world doesn't operate in only black and white, but includes shades of grey. It highlights that some people are inclined to let the perfect be the enemy of the good by not being open to compromise or to accepting small improvements.
It means that, rather than shouting about how people are not doing everything you want them to do, you should accept that people are doing something you can approve of. Instead of criticising people for drinking cow's milk in plastic bottles, why not praise them for drinking cow's milk in glass bottles? Using reusable glass bottles is an improvement on our current situation. It might not instantly reach the utopia you want, but it's a step in the right direction... isn't it?
https://tildes.net/~enviro/aca/how_to_solve_the_worlds_plastics_problem_bring_back_the_milk_man#comment-2kqj To further illustrate this, an extreme example, just to show you the absurdity of the...
To further illustrate this, an extreme example, just to show you the absurdity of the "baby steps" argument: If this was not about milk, but about something that everyone agrees is atrocious, let's say abusing and torturing dogs for fun. Say someone did that every day and then proclaimed "I'm actually only doing it 6 out of 7 days a week from now on." Would you tell others they shouldn't criticize this person, because they're doing a bit better than they did before? Or would you agree that saying "hey, at least you're doing a step in the right direction" is not enough and we should continue telling this person that doing it at all, no matter how often or in what severity, is wrong?
I think my point of view on this should already be obvious. I would praise that person for reducing the harm they're doing - and I would encourage them to continue on that path. I would not start...
I think my point of view on this should already be obvious. I would praise that person for reducing the harm they're doing - and I would encourage them to continue on that path. I would not start abusing them for continuing to drive a petrol-fuelled car, which is distracting and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Because you come across as holier than thou. Already the tide is turning against (I hate to use the term) "political correctness". Because many people are sick of being dictated to, what they...
Because you come across as holier than thou.
Already the tide is turning against (I hate to use the term) "political correctness". Because many people are sick of being dictated to, what they should/shouldn't say, eat, drink etc.
You don't bring people onside by continually wagging your finger at them and criticising them because you'll only turn them entirely away from your viewpoint, and it is pretty evident that this is what is happening, not just regarding consumption of milk/animal products, but wider than that.
I can't dictate anything to you, and I'm not trying to force you to do anything. Frankly I couldn't care less what you eat, drink, or say. I do care, however, about the victims of your choices; in...
I can't dictate anything to you, and I'm not trying to force you to do anything. Frankly I couldn't care less what you eat, drink, or say. I do care, however, about the victims of your choices; in this case, animals and the environment - and in turn every person on this planet and our future. I'm not telling you you're a bad person. I'm simply telling you about the truths and effects of the choices you make - how you feel about that is entirely on you, and you can choose to close yourself off from the message just because you feel I'm talking down to you.
But the truth is, whether you want to accept it or not, that it's not as ineffective as you think it is. The "holier than thou" argument is really just an excuse for people who don't like to question their choices, using the messenger as a scapegoat à la "I won't go vegan because you were so rude to me" - and I have no interest arguing with these people because it's pointless. The majority of other vegans I know, including myself, have been persuaded by arguments like these - after all, why would someone ever have any motivation to change when everyone around them is telling them they're completely fine?
Social change never came with people being nice and complacent all the time. Imagine using the same argument for other issues. "Don't tell people they shouldn't keep slaves, you just come across as holier than thou!" (And before you come at my throat, I'm not equating the severity of these issues - but merely drawing parallels to the present rhetoric here.)
No, I'm convinced people like these will only ever change when there's enough social pressure to do so. There's the historical example of foot-binding in China. When families started speaking out...
No, I'm convinced people like these will only ever change when there's enough social pressure to do so.
Yes, I would tell people not to criticise someone who has improved their behaviour. Attacking someone only makes them defensive and less likely to change. Encouraging them for their positive steps...
Yes, I would tell people not to criticise someone who has improved their behaviour. Attacking someone only makes them defensive and less likely to change. Encouraging them for their positive steps makes them more like to continue to change.
And, while we're picking people up for not answering questions...
Using reusable glass bottles is an improvement on our current situation. It might not instantly reach the utopia you want, but it's a step in the right direction... isn't it?
Yeah, I'm having a hard time believing that, sorry. I really didn't want to get out the hypotheticals that make everyone uncomfortable but jesus christ. Just imagine how this would sound in any...
Yeah, I'm having a hard time believing that, sorry. I really didn't want to get out the hypotheticals that make everyone uncomfortable but jesus christ. Just imagine how this would sound in any other situation. "Hey Bob, I heard you've stopped raping your wife and only beat her up occasionally now! That's so great, keep it up!"
Using reusable glass bottles is an improvement on our current situation. It might not instantly reach the utopia you want, but it's a step in the right direction... isn't it?
It should be clear at this point that no, it's not. Telling people "make this convenient switch from plastic to glass while continuing to do this other thing that is very very bad for the planet, just so you can feel better about your choices!" is really just treading water. We have far bigger issues at hand, the world's environmental problems are not caused by plastic milk jugs.
If you can't see that drinking cow's milk from glass bottles is better than drinking cow's milk from plastic bottles, then we have no common ground on which to hold a valid discussion. Your...
If you can't see that drinking cow's milk from glass bottles is better than drinking cow's milk from plastic bottles, then we have no common ground on which to hold a valid discussion. Your reality is different to mine.
He sees that it is better. It's just that this kind of better doesn't make a real difference. I agree with both of you, really. It's a minuscule step, but it's denial and just a little...
He sees that it is better. It's just that this kind of better doesn't make a real difference.
I agree with both of you, really.
It's a minuscule step, but it's denial and just a little narcissistic.
Btw, I'm not vegan nor vegetarian. And i know that this small change wouldn't make up for the bad choices i make.
Not quite. I agreed earlier on that it's better: I disagreed that it's a step in the right direction.
Not quite. I agreed earlier on that it's better:
There's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk. So if you say "hey here's a better way of getting cow's milk" you're right, it's better, but it's still bad when plant milks is an alternative.
I disagreed that it's a step in the right direction.
Just out of curiosity, since you seem to be so joyous about this reduction of plastic waste, do you eat fish? Did you know that fishing nets account for 46% of ocean plastic waste? If you're...
Just out of curiosity, since you seem to be so joyous about this reduction of plastic waste, do you eat fish? Did you know that fishing nets account for 46% of ocean plastic waste? If you're worried about plastic pollution, ditching fish is about one of the most effective things you can do to reduce your impact.
The sentence I'm disputing said "There's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk." I'm making the point that there is at least one ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk. The...
The sentence I'm disputing said "There's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk." I'm making the point that there is at least one ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk. The fact that noone is using that method is irrelevant. It is sufficient for my purposes to prove that absolutist statement is false. I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are other alternatives.
If I have demonstrated that there is an ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk - and it seems from your "yeah" that I have done so - then it is a valid argument. That's how arguments work.
Ok cool then. Let's argue about hypotheticals just so we can prove we're technically right while the environment keeps deteriorating around us as a direct consequence of the choices we make. But...
Ok cool then. Let's argue about hypotheticals just so we can prove we're technically right while the environment keeps deteriorating around us as a direct consequence of the choices we make. But hey, at least the vegans got destroyed with facts and logic, right?
It's about more than just this argument. It's about the black-and-white, no-compromise-allowed view which leads to a Greens political party voting against legislation which would have put a price...
It's about more than just this argument. It's about the black-and-white, no-compromise-allowed view which leads to a Greens political party voting against legislation which would have put a price on carbon - thus achieving exactly the opposite of what they wanted. That all-or-nothing approach does not work. It alienates the very people you're hoping to convince, the very people who need to change in order to achieve what you want.
I did read it, and I don't see the relevance. I have no obligation coddling people who have no interest in what I'm saying. I'll quote this bit from this guide :
I did read it, and I don't see the relevance. I have no obligation coddling people who have no interest in what I'm saying.
There is no form of outreach which is 100% effective - if there was, then that's what everyone would be doing. I know that the comics do have an impact, because I keep getting people writing to me to say they've gone vegan after really thinking about it since seeing the comics. I make them this way so they're accessible and simple.
But more importantly - if you aren't vegan and you're trying to tell me how best to get the message across - then just tell me what to say to you, and I'll say it back, and then you'll go vegan right? :)
I'm saying you're wrong, even if you employed the most compassionate methods possible you'd still be causing stress to the cow, taking milk that was intended for a calf, and harming the...
I'm saying you're wrong, even if you employed the most compassionate methods possible you'd still be causing stress to the cow, taking milk that was intended for a calf, and harming the environment by supporting an industry that produces as much carbon as half of all global transport. So no, I don't think you do understand how arguments work, because you argued yourself into a corner.
The fact that no one is doing this should be enough for you to realise that maybe you shouldn't be using dairy.
For you to milk the cow once a day by hand, you would first have to impregnate it, then take the calf away so you can take the milk that the mother cow produces for it. Not to mention that the way...
For you to milk the cow once a day by hand, you would first have to impregnate it, then take the calf away so you can take the milk that the mother cow produces for it.
Not to mention that the way dairy cows have been selectively bred, they basically come with guaranteed health problems so the very act of buying a cow (thus contributing to breeding) is already unethical.
I make Oat Milk for less than 20p a liter, oats grown not far from where I live and water from the tap, really nice milk as well. A lot less pus in it than cow milk
I make Oat Milk for less than 20p a liter, oats grown not far from where I live and water from the tap, really nice milk as well. A lot less pus in it than cow milk
I mean sure, we could push this argument to absurdity and end up at the conclusion that to minimize our negative impact on the planet, we should all commit suicide. We have to draw a line...
Firstly, I don't believe this article is advocating consumption of animal products. It's not saying "Everyone must drink milk and eat meat!" It's simply accepting that people already do drink milk...
Firstly, I don't believe this article is advocating consumption of animal products. It's not saying "Everyone must drink milk and eat meat!" It's simply accepting that people already do drink milk and eat meat, and moving on from there.
Secondly, improving the world slightly is better than not improving the world at all, and more achievable than improving the world a lot. Any improvement is better than no improvement. If you ask people to give up dairy products entirely, it's not going to happen, and you won't achieve anything. So why not work on something that people will do (recycle packaging), rather than something they won't do (give up dairy)?
It still normalizes it, which is what I'm against. See my reply here: https://tildes.net/~enviro/aca/how_to_solve_the_worlds_plastics_problem_bring_back_the_milk_man#comment-2kqj
Firstly, I don't believe this article is advocating consumption of animal products. It's not saying "Everyone must drink milk and eat meat!" It's simply accepting that people already do drink milk and eat meat, and moving on from there.
It still normalizes it, which is what I'm against.
Secondly, improving the world slightly is better than not improving the world at all, and more achievable than improving the world a lot. Any improvement is better than no improvement. If you ask people to give up dairy products entirely, it's not going to happen, and you won't achieve anything. So why not work on something that people will do (recycle packaging), rather than something they won't do (give up dairy)?
It is normal, though. Vegans and vegetarians are undoubtedly the outliers. I'm not claiming this to be right or correct, but consuming meat and dairy is normal.
It still normalizes it, which is what I'm against.
It is normal, though. Vegans and vegetarians are undoubtedly the outliers. I'm not claiming this to be right or correct, but consuming meat and dairy is normal.
Well... obviously? Things will never change if everyone just accepts them. Slavery was normal at one point. Women having no rights was normal at one point. No one would claim this was right or...
Well... obviously? Things will never change if everyone just accepts them.
Slavery was normal at one point. Women having no rights was normal at one point. No one would claim this was right or correct, either. I don't really see what point you're trying to make.
the difference is eating meat and dairy is--whether you agree with the assessment or not--no more objectively correct or incorrect than only eating plants and their byproducts or something...
Slavery was normal at one point. Women having no rights was normal at one point. No one would claim this was right or correct, either. I don't really see what point you're trying to make.
the difference is eating meat and dairy is--whether you agree with the assessment or not--no more objectively correct or incorrect than only eating plants and their byproducts or something similar, whereas slavery and the political repression of women were both objective wrongs that, even in the times they took place, had to be justified with pseudo-science and the idea that X race was superior to Y race and the notion that women were undeserving of political representation and would fuck up the social order if they were recognized. there's not really a comparable moral judgement to be made between them and being vegan or vegetarian unless you take the line that most (if not all) uses of animals and their byproducts are inherently and inevitably exploitative, at which point you're going to be dealing with a whole host of other moral and ethical problems.
my point is that maybe it is unethical to you, but that's just to you. the overwhelming majority of people don't care, have no opinion, or otherwise find either eating meat and dairy or being...
Eating animals and their products is objectively unethical to me.
my point is that maybe it is unethical to you, but that's just to you. the overwhelming majority of people don't care, have no opinion, or otherwise find either eating meat and dairy or being vegan/vegetarian acceptable because most people are too busy worrying about getting something to eat at all than the ethics of what they're going to eat. this is not true of the examples given in the post replied to, which are slavery and the political repression of women.
comparatively, it has long been established by religious doctrines and holy books and a billion other things that morally, it is not acceptable for people to be repressed or discriminated against because everybody is created equal. therefore, unless you're going to take the stance that it is unethical and immoral to use really any animal products because the way you go about getting them is inherently exploitative--a stance which nearly nobody takes because it would effectively prelude you from living due to the nature of humans--you really can't draw a comparison between slavery or the political repression of women and eating meat or drinking dairy. it's ultimately a completely subjective moral judgement, whereas the moral acceptability of slavery and the political repression of women kinda aren't and kinda never were even if people did actually (and continue to) enslave others and repress women. or, i suppose you could, but it'd be a stupid comparison.
when literally every government on the planet agrees that slavery is bad and has illegalized it and most of them made significant efforts to crack down on it, i think it's pretty reasonable to say...
I don't understand your argument. You are saying that the ethics of slavery is objective
when literally every government on the planet agrees that slavery is bad and has illegalized it and most of them made significant efforts to crack down on it, i think it's pretty reasonable to say that we as a global society have come to a general conclusion that the illegal ownership of people is an objective and moral wrong. there will always be people who dissent to that, but they're, like vegans and vegetarians, statistical outliers in the data. this is less true of political repression of women, but even societies where it's historically something of a taboo for women to participate in democracy or government are coming around to it, which suggests we're pretty close to a global consensus on that one too.
and eating animals is subjective, yet that is entirely determined by the society in which you live. Hindus in India live in a different society than you, and might have entirely different perceptions on the ethics of eating animals, particularly cows.
...you basically just agreed with my point that it is completely subjective. if certain cultures can get along completely fine with eating meat and others can without it, that would suggest that there's no objective moral in this situation and it's an entirely subjective call as to whether or not eating meat or not eating meat is acceptable.
which is why i said: there will always be people who dissent to that, but they're, like vegans and vegetarians, statistical outliers in the data. there may not be a 100% objective belief, but...
I don't think any beliefs can be objective. That is why they're beliefs. Yes, >95 percent of people on earth agree slavery is wrong, but there is still slavery in the world, and those who practice it think it is okay. Slavery being wrong is not a measurable fact, it is something we believe because we extended our empathy to others. If I believe that the bible, written by god, says slavery is A-Okay, then slavery is okay -- subjectively, to me. The fact that the official policy of my government says something else doesn't matter.
which is why i said:
there will always be people who dissent to that, but they're, like vegans and vegetarians, statistical outliers in the data.
there may not be a 100% objective belief, but insofar as it is possible, our idea that slavery is bad and wrong and punishable and the idea that women should not be held back because they are women are both about as objective as human ethics ever can be or will get to the point where making the distinction is effectively semantic at the macroscopic scale. they're just things basically everybody agrees on, and you just can't make that same case for the ethics or morals of vegetarianism and veganism.
But there was a point that it wasn't wrong to have slaves. For a long time. It was not the slave owners that woke up one day and said "oh boy, this is wrong". It was the slaves and people who...
But there was a point that it wasn't wrong to have slaves. For a long time. It was not the slave owners that woke up one day and said "oh boy, this is wrong". It was the slaves and people who found it wrong that fought back. One subjective view against another.
So, if our views change about meat and >95% of the planet says it's wrong and stop eating meat and killing animais, it's not subjective anymore?
You do realize that this: Would have been entirely valid about slavery and women's rights if you went back in time as well, right? Knowing what we do now doesn't change the fact that back then it...
You do realize that this:
it is completely subjective. if certain cultures can get along completely fine with eating meat and others can without it, that would suggest that there's no objective moral in this situation and it's an entirely subjective call as to whether or not eating meat or not eating meat is acceptable.
Would have been entirely valid about slavery and women's rights if you went back in time as well, right? Knowing what we do now doesn't change the fact that back then it was socially accepted, but still wrong - no matter if it happened then or now. In a couple decades we may as well look back on this justification for exploiting animals like we now look back on the justifications for slavery.
Just because there's no social consesus on it yet doesn't automatically make morality subjective. Cultures and social norms develop over time. Whether it is slavery, women having the vote, or anything else, the fact that it was ever the norm or part of culture, is not a justification for it. If you think that culture is a justification, then if you look at other cultures, you must advocate every single practice that they do, regardless of how clearly unethical it is. That's not a rational point of view. You should be able to form a view on a practice regardless of where it happens. So if you say that killing dogs is unacceptable because your culture says so, but you think that it's fine if other cultures do it, consider the following: If someone is about to kill a dog in your culture, would you really say "Excuse me, can you please cross the border to that other culture where that kind of thing is the norm? Then I will stop caring about that dog". This is about the victim, it doesn't matter where it happens.
Objective morality is a myth, and advocation for it is essentially campaigning for authoritarianism. You are saying "There are no other options to see the world than what I provide." I hope...
Just because there's no social consesus on it yet doesn't automatically make morality subjective.
Objective morality is a myth, and advocation for it is essentially campaigning for authoritarianism. You are saying "There are no other options to see the world than what I provide." I hope hearing that makes you understand why you are not terribly popular right now.
Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced that innate morality actually exists. It seems to me that morality is simply the result of empathy and the avoidance of consequences.
Even if you think that morality is subjective, your ethics should still be backed by logic. They are not random, nor are they plucked from thin air. As such, the question is simple - do you have...
Even if you think that morality is subjective, your ethics should still be backed by logic. They are not random, nor are they plucked from thin air. As such, the question is simple - do you have any consideration for animals or not? Most people would say that they care about animals, or at the very least, would not like to needlessly harm them. Farming animals for our consumption is needless, and so all harm visited upon them including their slaughter, is needless also. So your own subjective view should be to avoid harming them - if you have any consideration for them whatsoever.
It is objectively worse in every aspect. Meat/animal products require animals to be killed (yes, even dairy and eggs - male calfs/chicks that are not viable for the industry, along with the dairy...
eating meat and dairy is no more objectively correct or incorrect than only eating plants
It is objectively worse in every aspect.
Meat/animal products require animals to be killed (yes, even dairy and eggs - male calfs/chicks that are not viable for the industry, along with the dairy cows/egg hens being killed when their production stops) - and I trust you'd agree that there's a difference between killing an animal and plucking some fruit off a tree. (And yes, animals like small rodents and insects are killed for plant agriculture too - however, livestock animals also eat crops grown this way, and following a plant-based diet reduces this number significantly.)
There are ethical problems with plant agriculture too - exploitation of workers, etc. - however these issues and many more are also present in the animal agriculture industry, on top of the exploitation and killing of animals. You can ethically source plant food, you can't ethically source animal food since it inherently comes with exploitation.
Isn't this exactly what's happening here, when you say eating meat and dairy is okay? If you want to be ethically consistent, you'd have to conclude that killing and eating any animal (unecessarily, like mentioned above) is okay as well. Try to imagine how someone breeding, killing and selling dog meat would be perceived in our society - while we do the exact same to pigs, cows and other animals, just on a much more massive scale.
at which point you're going to be dealing with a whole host of other moral and ethical problems.
i think you misread about half of my post, so i'm going to just not address those parts. that said, you pretty much made the case for me that it's, like i said, a morally subjective call and not a...
i think you misread about half of my post, so i'm going to just not address those parts. that said, you pretty much made the case for me that it's, like i said, a morally subjective call and not a functionally objective one like we would probably categorize slavery.
Meat/animal products require animals to be killed (yes, even dairy and eggs - male calfs/chicks that are not viable for the industry, along with the dairy cows/egg hens being killed when their production stops) - and I trust you'd agree that there's a difference between killing an animal and plucking some fruit off a tree. (And yes, animals like small rodents and insects are killed for plant agriculture too - however, livestock animals also eat crops grown this way, and following a plant-based diet reduces this number significantly.)
aside from the fact that you're responding to a moral judgment with something that is not about morals here and thus is irrelevant, this is not a deal-breaker for me, as is true of most of the human population. that's just kinda how it is. killing animals for food or being the beneficiary of animals that were killed for food is a part of most people's existence on this planet, and it has been since we became bipedal.
Plant-based diets can be nutritionally complete and healthy for all stages of life and reduce risks for various diseases compared to omnivore diets, meaning that continuing to eat meat/animal products is unnecessary and is only done out of convenience/preference.
which is cool, except for the part where they often need to be supplemented (because they're often nutritionally deficient) lest you risk catastrophic damage to your body. and those supplements are pretty much all either animal based or based in exploitation. this doesn't get to the part where this is not a viable option for the overwhelming majority of humanity due to things like resource distribution, potential expenses (because veganism and vegetarianism are overwhelmingly white, middle-class western diets and well out of the expense range of most of humanity), the existence of things such as food deserts (which in unison with the previously mentioned expenses is a death blow to the viability of it for most people)...
There are ethical problems with plant agriculture too - exploitation of workers, etc. - however these issues and many more are also present in the animal agriculture industry, on top of the exploitation and killing of animals. You can ethically source plant food, you can't ethically source animal food since it inherently comes with exploitation.
which would suggest it is not an objective thing, but a subjective, moral call for people to make. which is what i said.
Isn't this exactly what's happening here, when you say eating meat and dairy is okay? If you want to be ethically consistent, you'd have to conclude that killing and eating any animal (unecessarily, like mentioned above) is okay as well. Try to imagine how someone breeding, killing and selling dog meat would be perceived in our society - while we do the exact same to pigs, cows and other animals, just on a much more massive scale.
no, because animals are categorically not comparable to humans, full stop. there is a hard-to-define but clear gulf between even the most intelligent animal or the most conscious animal. humans are categorically superior on most levels to basically all animals because we have the ability to make complex decisions that other animals cannot come close to. moreover, human ethics are not and have never been consistent. reality is complicated, and nuance is a thing that goes into every ethical judgement people make. expecting blanket judgments is an exercise in futility and is laughable.
What kind of problems?
well, for starters: is it ethical to exist at all as a human if your very existence is ultimately predicated on the exploitation of other beings, at that point?
Do you not think empathy for living beings and avoiding to harm them is about morals? What else are morals, then? The amount of time that something has been happening is not at all linked with how...
aside from the fact that you're responding to a moral judgment with something that is not about morals
Do you not think empathy for living beings and avoiding to harm them is about morals? What else are morals, then?
that's just kinda how it is. killing animals for food or being the beneficiary of animals that were killed for food is a part of most people's existence on this planet, and it has been since we became bipedal.
The amount of time that something has been happening is not at all linked with how harmful it is to the victims. Indeed, the fact that it has been going on so long just underlines how harmful it has been, because the death toll is so high it will never be calculated, and has been entirely unnecessary since we were able to harvest crops successfully. With this attitude nothing would ever change in society, and things that used to happen for hundreds of years like slavery and so on would continue today just because that's what has been happening.
which is cool, except for the part where they often need to be supplemented (because they're often nutritionally deficient) lest you risk catastrophic damage to your body.
You're probably talking about B12, the only vitamin not naturally occuring in plant matter. It's usually associated with animal products, but fact is that bacteria produce B12. As such, it becomes a simple question of - are you going to get B12 from the bacteria in isolation, or are you going to exploit and kill billions of animals just to get B12 from the bacteria within their bodies? In addition, a B12 supplement is injected into livestock to keep their levels up due to top soil being too intensively used and lacking in certain nutrients. So the choice becomes even more absurd - either take a B12 supplement, or give an animal a B12 supplement then kill them. Why take the second option?
and those supplements are pretty much all either animal based or based in exploitation
There are plenty of entirely vegan supplements out there so this claim has no basis.
because veganism and vegetarianism are overwhelmingly white, middle-class western diets
Are you conveniently ignoring the 50% vegetarian population of India, a very much not-white, not-western country?
and well out of the expense range of most of humanity
Common staples like bread, rice, pasta, beans, oats, vegetables are among the cheapest foods. You might say that vegan substitute meats etc are expensive - and while that can sometimes be true, they are entirely unnecessary for a healthy diet.
Apart from that, this is not a core argument against veganism. This is a reason why some people might have a hard time going vegan, yes, but you do realize that "food deserts are a thing that exists and that's why I personally won't go vegan" is pretty bad reasoning?
which would suggest it is not an objective thing, but a subjective, moral call for people to make. which is what i said.
I don't see how that makes it subjective? We're talking about harm reduction. Humans have empathy, for animals too, so why would you choose "potential harm to human workers plus inevitable harm to animals" over "potential harm to human workers" if your goal is to reduce harm?
no, because animals are categorically not comparable to humans, full stop. there is a hard-to-define but clear gulf between even the most intelligent animal or the most conscious animal. humans are categorically superior on most levels to basically all animals because we have the ability to make complex decisions that other animals cannot come close to. moreover, human ethics are not and have never been consistent. reality is complicated, and nuance is a thing that goes into every ethical judgement people make. expecting blanket judgments is an exercise in futility and is laughable.
Intelligence is not a valid justification for taking life. To put this as simply as possible, cats, dogs and hamsters are not as intelligent as us. But most people would be appalled to think of that as a reason to kill or harm them. Also, choosing not to harm animals is not the same as saying they are human or treating them as human. All animals are different, and require different treatment by us. It doesn't make sense on a practical level to treat any animal as human, or to treat any animal as any other type of animal. But, that's no reason to be harming them, simply because they are not human. Cats and dogs are not human, but it doesn't mean that you have "humanized" them just because you didn't slit their throat.
is it ethical to exist at all as a human if your very existence is ultimately predicated on the exploitation of other beings, at that point?
Humans will always have a negative impact on the environment and other beings while they're alive, you're right with that. But why would you choose to consciously, willingly inflict even more harm upon them when there's no reason for you to do so and there are enough alternatives to avoid this harm?
Perhaps in the US, but far from it globally. Vegetarianism By Country (2010) By raw numbers: India : 375M - 500M China : 54M - 68M Brazil : 29M Mexico : 23M Japan : 18M US : 12M - 20M By...
potential expenses (because veganism and vegetarianism are overwhelmingly white, middle-class western diets and well out of the expense range of most of humanity)
This sounds like a good idea. Its already in use for bottled water,fill up a reusable bottle,or drop off and get a new one. I remember returning soda bottles for deposit(missed the milkman...
This sounds like a good idea. Its already in use for bottled water,fill up a reusable bottle,or drop off and get a new one. I remember returning soda bottles for deposit(missed the milkman era,sadly). Always wondered why we moved away from it, and find it funny some companies are circling back to it. Sometimes, the old ways are better,after all.
Option 1) Openly accessible reusable container system that reduces plastics use and overall is a benefit to the environment
Option 2) This is a thinly veiled market lock-down campaign designed to require a particular brand-container combination to stave off the generics which are hurting the brand world for consumables.
Wonder which option
are going to choose? Because the company that doesn't believe water is a human right is just FULL of good intentions... scum that should be anti-trusted into the goddamn dirt.
To be fair, my understanding is that it is more options 1.... The company which launched "Loop", TerraCycle from what I can tell is an independent recycling company.
Sure, the morally-bankrupt multinationals are the ones to have signed on, but I'd hope that it isn't necessarily at the exclusion of other companies. Let's be honest, having this service available for locally-produced products made by small independent businesses is great and all, but if you really want to have the biggest impact you've got to target the big brands which the majority of people are using.
This is a step in the right direction.
I don’t understand why the focus on moving heavy bottles and fancy packaging around if we are mail ordering though.
The whole idea behind product packaging is so it looks enticing on the shelf to make you want to buy it. If I’m buying online though, it’s the product page that entices me, not the bottle it comes in. And if you’ve locked me into a brand and just want me to re-up every time I run out, why not just let me keep my stuff in whatever kind of jar or tube I want and just ship the product to me in a biodegradable bag or something? Why go through the effort of shipping aluminum bottles back and forth and dealing with the attrition that is sure to come from all that shipping?
The delivery van has to go back to the warehouse at the end of the day. After every delivery they fill the just emptied space with your old containers. Start the day with a van full of product, end with a van full of empty containers. No extra trips were made.
Heavy duty containers have weight. Weight costs energy to transport. Cleaning them takes time and effort. Moving stuff generally involves also damaging stuff in handling so the bottles themselves will have some rate of attrition.
Moreover, cylindrical bottles and custom containers of varying shapes don't stack neatly, meaning you can fit less volume of product per truckload, requiring more trucks, more warehouse space, more labor involved in packing, etc. Also, needing to ship around and track inventory on various containers of stuff means a lot more logistical effort for the middle-man in receiving things from the producers before sending them off to the consumer. It would be a lot easier for them to manage if they were receiving one giant vat of product that they use to fill standardized or disposable containers that they send off.
All of these are reasons why it's less efficient to move individually labelled, custom product containers than it would have been to just send you stuff in nondescript, interchangeable jars or disposable bags.
What about those of us who do not buy our groceries online? I don't find ordering groceries online to be very convenient. It's much simpler to go to the supermarket when it suits me, rather than having to wait around for a delivery person who may or may not arrive within a specified window of a few hours - because unlike many other products one can buy online, groceries can't just be left in the mailbox or on the doorstep until you come home and unpack them. Ice cream, for instance, wouldn't survive being left on the doorstep very long.
I note that it's only high-end expensive products being used in this trial. I hope they intend to extend this to cheap products as well.
I think a better alternative would be to get the supermarkets involved as well as the manufacturers. I buy a product from a supermarket, take it home, use the product, then return the empty package to a re-using bin at the supermarket next time I go shopping.
A small dairy near me does this with one of the small markets. Since I was a kid, we would buy their milk in glass jars. They have a $1-2 deposit on the bottle the first time you buy, but it rolls over as long as you bring the empty back.
We have one of these near me as well. In fact, I just bought some yesterday. Since they're a local creamery, it's definitely listed at a premium, even with the glass bottle return taken into account.
I would love to bring empty glass containers to the supermarket and fill them with milk fountain machines, and this is coming from someone who regularly drinks 2 gallons of milk a week by himself.
There are actually 2-3 companies who do that in Southern California. One of them makes an incredibly delicious chocolate milk.
Broguiere's is the one I'm thinking of. It has the best chocolate milk I've ever had.
There's at least two that do that in Northern California, too -- Strauss Creamery and Nutcher Milk, from Petaluma and Modesto respectively, appear to have an agreement with stores that distribute their products to do the same thing. I think the deposit is $4 for each, at least at Nugget Market.
This thread has just turned into bickering between people who completely and fundamentally disagree. There's no value in continuing; everybody's going to keep getting upset, and nobody's going to change their mind.
Oh yikes. I can't take any article on environmentalism seriously when it's advocating consumption of animal products.
It's really easy to make oat milk or nut milks at home and they work perfectly fine in cereal, coffee, etc. No plastic at all needed...
Would you rather people drink milk and create plastic waste or just drink milk?
It's not like these two are the only options. I'd rather they don't do it at all.
Should we advocate something bad just because it's slightly better than the alternative?
Absolutely. Telling someone to just stop having milk is unlikely to go anywhere. Telling someone to instead get their milk in a better way has a chance. Never let perfect be the enemy of good.
Disagree. Nobody argues the perfect/good thing when it's about issues like littering etc. I think going at it like this is more likely to breed complacency and make people stop at a place where they're still doing way more harm than they could be, because they feel like they're already doing enough and don't have the motivation to change.
Don't get me wrong, activism (I use this term loosely) like this is of course effective on some people, but we also need people pushing how it isn't enough - I've talked to a lot of people about this and there's a huge number (me included) where the "reductarian" approach never worked long-term (because if it's ok sometimes, it's easy to fall into the trap of telling yourself it's ok other times, and eventually all the time) and strict refusal is the only viable way to make a change.
The perfect/good argument does exist with littering. The current solution in most of the world is to provide litter bins but the perfect solution would be to have no litter bins and for people to not produce rubbish that needs to be thrown out. Bins are a compromise.
The emphasis is on advocating bad things.
There's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk. So if you say "hey here's a better way of getting cow's milk" you're right, it's better, but it's still bad when plant milks is an alternative.
That's simply not true. Factory farming might not be the solution, but there are ethical and sustainable ways to source cow's milk. It would make cow's milk harder to obtain, rarer, and more expensive - but it's possible to do.
It's straight up unethical though, it puts the cow under an immense amount of stress and the dairy industry is responsible for about as much animal death as the meat industry
If I put a cow in a big pasture, and let it roam free, and eat grass whenever and however it chooses, and then milk it once a day by hand... how am I putting it under an immense amount of stress?
I already said that factory farming is not the solution. That's not ethical or sustainable. But it's also not the only way to source cow's milk.
Okay so first of all, a cow has to of been pregnant recently to produce milk, like any other mammal. So this means you have to keep impregnating the cow (usually done with the farmers fist on something called a "rape rack" Google it) once the calf is born it's taken away from the mother because you dont want that calf drinking that tasty tasty milk that is definitely for humans, so you take the calf away and if it's male, kill it and if it's female you subject it to the same torture as it's mother. Cows form a really strong bond with their young (like most mammals) and when you tear a young calf away from its mother the emotional trauma is a pretty big deal for the cow, they can loose their voice calling out to their young for days. So yes they fucking suffer, even in your so called "big pasture"
http://www.humanemyth.org/happycows.htm
Fine. We wait until the cow gets pregnant naturally, and then milk it (while making sure not to deprive the calf). We might only get a few litres of milk that way, but it is possible to obtain cow's milk ethically and sustainably - which is the point I was originally making.
You assume it's black and white, all or nothing... but it's not.
Tagging @besa.
That doesn't solve the 2nd point I mentioned. And do you really think doing it this way is more realistic (for most people) than simply buying plant milk?
Morality is actually black and white, though. Either you're doing unnecessary harm, or you're not.
Who's talking about realistic? I'm merely trying to make the point that the absolutist extremist statement that "there's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk" is untrue. There are ethical and sustainable ways to source cow's milk. They might not supply the world's demand for cow's milk, but that's not my point. My point is that those ethical and sustainable methods exist: it's not all or nothing.
Alright, then assume there are indeed ethical and sustainable ways to do it.
What does this conclusion add to the discussion how we solve the current problem we're facing?
It adds the perspective that absolutist statements are probably wrong and generally useless. It shows that the world doesn't operate in only black and white, but includes shades of grey. It highlights that some people are inclined to let the perfect be the enemy of the good by not being open to compromise or to accepting small improvements.
It means that, rather than shouting about how people are not doing everything you want them to do, you should accept that people are doing something you can approve of. Instead of criticising people for drinking cow's milk in plastic bottles, why not praise them for drinking cow's milk in glass bottles? Using reusable glass bottles is an improvement on our current situation. It might not instantly reach the utopia you want, but it's a step in the right direction... isn't it?
https://tildes.net/~enviro/aca/how_to_solve_the_worlds_plastics_problem_bring_back_the_milk_man#comment-2kqj
To further illustrate this, an extreme example, just to show you the absurdity of the "baby steps" argument: If this was not about milk, but about something that everyone agrees is atrocious, let's say abusing and torturing dogs for fun. Say someone did that every day and then proclaimed "I'm actually only doing it 6 out of 7 days a week from now on." Would you tell others they shouldn't criticize this person, because they're doing a bit better than they did before? Or would you agree that saying "hey, at least you're doing a step in the right direction" is not enough and we should continue telling this person that doing it at all, no matter how often or in what severity, is wrong?
I think my point of view on this should already be obvious. I would praise that person for reducing the harm they're doing - and I would encourage them to continue on that path. I would not start abusing them for continuing to drive a petrol-fuelled car, which is distracting and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
You're honestly saying you'd praise someone who abuses dogs for fun, and not just because you're trying to make some kind of point?
Okay, however you didn't answer my initial question:
Because you come across as holier than thou.
Already the tide is turning against (I hate to use the term) "political correctness". Because many people are sick of being dictated to, what they should/shouldn't say, eat, drink etc.
You don't bring people onside by continually wagging your finger at them and criticising them because you'll only turn them entirely away from your viewpoint, and it is pretty evident that this is what is happening, not just regarding consumption of milk/animal products, but wider than that.
I can't dictate anything to you, and I'm not trying to force you to do anything. Frankly I couldn't care less what you eat, drink, or say. I do care, however, about the victims of your choices; in this case, animals and the environment - and in turn every person on this planet and our future. I'm not telling you you're a bad person. I'm simply telling you about the truths and effects of the choices you make - how you feel about that is entirely on you, and you can choose to close yourself off from the message just because you feel I'm talking down to you.
But the truth is, whether you want to accept it or not, that it's not as ineffective as you think it is. The "holier than thou" argument is really just an excuse for people who don't like to question their choices, using the messenger as a scapegoat à la "I won't go vegan because you were so rude to me" - and I have no interest arguing with these people because it's pointless. The majority of other vegans I know, including myself, have been persuaded by arguments like these - after all, why would someone ever have any motivation to change when everyone around them is telling them they're completely fine?
Social change never came with people being nice and complacent all the time. Imagine using the same argument for other issues. "Don't tell people they shouldn't keep slaves, you just come across as holier than thou!" (And before you come at my throat, I'm not equating the severity of these issues - but merely drawing parallels to the present rhetoric here.)
But they are the people you need to convince. If you're alienating them, what are you achieving?
No, I'm convinced people like these will only ever change when there's enough social pressure to do so.
There's the historical example of foot-binding in China. When families started speaking out against it and forbidding their sons from marrying women with bound feet, the decades-old practice died out within a generation.
You can't tell me this would've happened just as quickly and effectively with milder methods.
Yes, I would tell people not to criticise someone who has improved their behaviour. Attacking someone only makes them defensive and less likely to change. Encouraging them for their positive steps makes them more like to continue to change.
I think Aesop's fable of the North Wind and the Sun is relevant here.
And, while we're picking people up for not answering questions...
Yeah, I'm having a hard time believing that, sorry. I really didn't want to get out the hypotheticals that make everyone uncomfortable but jesus christ. Just imagine how this would sound in any other situation. "Hey Bob, I heard you've stopped raping your wife and only beat her up occasionally now! That's so great, keep it up!"
I'll add this reply to another person in this thread: https://tildes.net/~enviro/aca/how_to_solve_the_worlds_plastics_problem_bring_back_the_milk_man#comment-2l7d
It should be clear at this point that no, it's not. Telling people "make this convenient switch from plastic to glass while continuing to do this other thing that is very very bad for the planet, just so you can feel better about your choices!" is really just treading water. We have far bigger issues at hand, the world's environmental problems are not caused by plastic milk jugs.
If you can't see that drinking cow's milk from glass bottles is better than drinking cow's milk from plastic bottles, then we have no common ground on which to hold a valid discussion. Your reality is different to mine.
He sees that it is better. It's just that this kind of better doesn't make a real difference.
I agree with both of you, really.
It's a minuscule step, but it's denial and just a little narcissistic.
Btw, I'm not vegan nor vegetarian. And i know that this small change wouldn't make up for the bad choices i make.
There's plastic in a lot of other things.
They could have fooled me! In answer to a direct question, they wrote "It should be clear at this point that no, it's not."
Not quite. I agreed earlier on that it's better:
I disagreed that it's a step in the right direction.
Just out of curiosity, since you seem to be so joyous about this reduction of plastic waste, do you eat fish? Did you know that fishing nets account for 46% of ocean plastic waste? If you're worried about plastic pollution, ditching fish is about one of the most effective things you can do to reduce your impact.
Yeah but that's not what happens anywhere, so it's not a valid argument.
The sentence I'm disputing said "There's no ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk." I'm making the point that there is at least one ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk. The fact that noone is using that method is irrelevant. It is sufficient for my purposes to prove that absolutist statement is false. I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are other alternatives.
If I have demonstrated that there is an ethical and sustainable way to source cow's milk - and it seems from your "yeah" that I have done so - then it is a valid argument. That's how arguments work.
Ok cool then. Let's argue about hypotheticals just so we can prove we're technically right while the environment keeps deteriorating around us as a direct consequence of the choices we make. But hey, at least the vegans got destroyed with facts and logic, right?
It's about more than just this argument. It's about the black-and-white, no-compromise-allowed view which leads to a Greens political party voting against legislation which would have put a price on carbon - thus achieving exactly the opposite of what they wanted. That all-or-nothing approach does not work. It alienates the very people you're hoping to convince, the very people who need to change in order to achieve what you want.
I'm guessing you didn't read Aesop's fable about the Sun and the North Wind.
I did read it, and I don't see the relevance. I have no obligation coddling people who have no interest in what I'm saying.
I'll quote this bit from this guide :
I'm saying you're wrong, even if you employed the most compassionate methods possible you'd still be causing stress to the cow, taking milk that was intended for a calf, and harming the environment by supporting an industry that produces as much carbon as half of all global transport. So no, I don't think you do understand how arguments work, because you argued yourself into a corner.
The fact that no one is doing this should be enough for you to realise that maybe you shouldn't be using dairy.
For you to milk the cow once a day by hand, you would first have to impregnate it, then take the calf away so you can take the milk that the mother cow produces for it.
Not to mention that the way dairy cows have been selectively bred, they basically come with guaranteed health problems so the very act of buying a cow (thus contributing to breeding) is already unethical.
...and plant milks are still bad when no milk is the alternative. This argument never ends.
I make Oat Milk for less than 20p a liter, oats grown not far from where I live and water from the tap, really nice milk as well. A lot less pus in it than cow milk
I mean sure, we could push this argument to absurdity and end up at the conclusion that to minimize our negative impact on the planet, we should all commit suicide. We have to draw a line somwhere. And that surely shouldn't be at ditching plastic but still continuing to use up more than twice as many resources than you would with an easy alternative.
It's hard to directly compare, because you're talking two different types of pollution, plastics versus carbon.
Firstly, I don't believe this article is advocating consumption of animal products. It's not saying "Everyone must drink milk and eat meat!" It's simply accepting that people already do drink milk and eat meat, and moving on from there.
Secondly, improving the world slightly is better than not improving the world at all, and more achievable than improving the world a lot. Any improvement is better than no improvement. If you ask people to give up dairy products entirely, it's not going to happen, and you won't achieve anything. So why not work on something that people will do (recycle packaging), rather than something they won't do (give up dairy)?
It still normalizes it, which is what I'm against.
See my reply here: https://tildes.net/~enviro/aca/how_to_solve_the_worlds_plastics_problem_bring_back_the_milk_man#comment-2kqj
It is normal, though. Vegans and vegetarians are undoubtedly the outliers. I'm not claiming this to be right or correct, but consuming meat and dairy is normal.
Well... obviously? Things will never change if everyone just accepts them.
Slavery was normal at one point. Women having no rights was normal at one point. No one would claim this was right or correct, either. I don't really see what point you're trying to make.
the difference is eating meat and dairy is--whether you agree with the assessment or not--no more objectively correct or incorrect than only eating plants and their byproducts or something similar, whereas slavery and the political repression of women were both objective wrongs that, even in the times they took place, had to be justified with pseudo-science and the idea that X race was superior to Y race and the notion that women were undeserving of political representation and would fuck up the social order if they were recognized. there's not really a comparable moral judgement to be made between them and being vegan or vegetarian unless you take the line that most (if not all) uses of animals and their byproducts are inherently and inevitably exploitative, at which point you're going to be dealing with a whole host of other moral and ethical problems.
my point is that maybe it is unethical to you, but that's just to you. the overwhelming majority of people don't care, have no opinion, or otherwise find either eating meat and dairy or being vegan/vegetarian acceptable because most people are too busy worrying about getting something to eat at all than the ethics of what they're going to eat. this is not true of the examples given in the post replied to, which are slavery and the political repression of women.
comparatively, it has long been established by religious doctrines and holy books and a billion other things that morally, it is not acceptable for people to be repressed or discriminated against because everybody is created equal. therefore, unless you're going to take the stance that it is unethical and immoral to use really any animal products because the way you go about getting them is inherently exploitative--a stance which nearly nobody takes because it would effectively prelude you from living due to the nature of humans--you really can't draw a comparison between slavery or the political repression of women and eating meat or drinking dairy. it's ultimately a completely subjective moral judgement, whereas the moral acceptability of slavery and the political repression of women kinda aren't and kinda never were even if people did actually (and continue to) enslave others and repress women. or, i suppose you could, but it'd be a stupid comparison.
when literally every government on the planet agrees that slavery is bad and has illegalized it and most of them made significant efforts to crack down on it, i think it's pretty reasonable to say that we as a global society have come to a general conclusion that the illegal ownership of people is an objective and moral wrong. there will always be people who dissent to that, but they're, like vegans and vegetarians, statistical outliers in the data. this is less true of political repression of women, but even societies where it's historically something of a taboo for women to participate in democracy or government are coming around to it, which suggests we're pretty close to a global consensus on that one too.
...you basically just agreed with my point that it is completely subjective. if certain cultures can get along completely fine with eating meat and others can without it, that would suggest that there's no objective moral in this situation and it's an entirely subjective call as to whether or not eating meat or not eating meat is acceptable.
which is why i said:
there will always be people who dissent to that, but they're, like vegans and vegetarians, statistical outliers in the data.
there may not be a 100% objective belief, but insofar as it is possible, our idea that slavery is bad and wrong and punishable and the idea that women should not be held back because they are women are both about as objective as human ethics ever can be or will get to the point where making the distinction is effectively semantic at the macroscopic scale. they're just things basically everybody agrees on, and you just can't make that same case for the ethics or morals of vegetarianism and veganism.
But there was a point that it wasn't wrong to have slaves. For a long time. It was not the slave owners that woke up one day and said "oh boy, this is wrong". It was the slaves and people who found it wrong that fought back. One subjective view against another.
So, if our views change about meat and >95% of the planet says it's wrong and stop eating meat and killing animais, it's not subjective anymore?
You do realize that this:
Would have been entirely valid about slavery and women's rights if you went back in time as well, right? Knowing what we do now doesn't change the fact that back then it was socially accepted, but still wrong - no matter if it happened then or now. In a couple decades we may as well look back on this justification for exploiting animals like we now look back on the justifications for slavery.
Just because there's no social consesus on it yet doesn't automatically make morality subjective. Cultures and social norms develop over time. Whether it is slavery, women having the vote, or anything else, the fact that it was ever the norm or part of culture, is not a justification for it. If you think that culture is a justification, then if you look at other cultures, you must advocate every single practice that they do, regardless of how clearly unethical it is. That's not a rational point of view. You should be able to form a view on a practice regardless of where it happens. So if you say that killing dogs is unacceptable because your culture says so, but you think that it's fine if other cultures do it, consider the following: If someone is about to kill a dog in your culture, would you really say "Excuse me, can you please cross the border to that other culture where that kind of thing is the norm? Then I will stop caring about that dog". This is about the victim, it doesn't matter where it happens.
Objective morality is a myth, and advocation for it is essentially campaigning for authoritarianism. You are saying "There are no other options to see the world than what I provide." I hope hearing that makes you understand why you are not terribly popular right now.
Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced that innate morality actually exists. It seems to me that morality is simply the result of empathy and the avoidance of consequences.
Even if you think that morality is subjective, your ethics should still be backed by logic. They are not random, nor are they plucked from thin air. As such, the question is simple - do you have any consideration for animals or not? Most people would say that they care about animals, or at the very least, would not like to needlessly harm them. Farming animals for our consumption is needless, and so all harm visited upon them including their slaughter, is needless also. So your own subjective view should be to avoid harming them - if you have any consideration for them whatsoever.
It is objectively worse in every aspect.
Meat/animal products require animals to be killed (yes, even dairy and eggs - male calfs/chicks that are not viable for the industry, along with the dairy cows/egg hens being killed when their production stops) - and I trust you'd agree that there's a difference between killing an animal and plucking some fruit off a tree. (And yes, animals like small rodents and insects are killed for plant agriculture too - however, livestock animals also eat crops grown this way, and following a plant-based diet reduces this number significantly.)
Plant-based diets can be nutritionally complete and healthy for all stages of life and reduce risks for various diseases compared to omnivore diets, meaning that continuing to eat meat/animal products is unnecessary and is only done out of convenience/preference.
Plant-based diets cause significantly less CO2 emissions and require less water and land area than omnivore diets, so a plant-based diet is a lot more ecologically sustainable.
There are ethical problems with plant agriculture too - exploitation of workers, etc. - however these issues and many more are also present in the animal agriculture industry, on top of the exploitation and killing of animals. You can ethically source plant food, you can't ethically source animal food since it inherently comes with exploitation.
There is no pseudo-science in play here. It has been shown that animals feel pain, some (like cows) show complex personality traits and form relationships with other animals. We usually accept these facts for companion animals like cats and dogs. In fact...
Isn't this exactly what's happening here, when you say eating meat and dairy is okay? If you want to be ethically consistent, you'd have to conclude that killing and eating any animal (unecessarily, like mentioned above) is okay as well. Try to imagine how someone breeding, killing and selling dog meat would be perceived in our society - while we do the exact same to pigs, cows and other animals, just on a much more massive scale.
What kind of problems?
i think you misread about half of my post, so i'm going to just not address those parts. that said, you pretty much made the case for me that it's, like i said, a morally subjective call and not a functionally objective one like we would probably categorize slavery.
aside from the fact that you're responding to a moral judgment with something that is not about morals here and thus is irrelevant, this is not a deal-breaker for me, as is true of most of the human population. that's just kinda how it is. killing animals for food or being the beneficiary of animals that were killed for food is a part of most people's existence on this planet, and it has been since we became bipedal.
which is cool, except for the part where they often need to be supplemented (because they're often nutritionally deficient) lest you risk catastrophic damage to your body. and those supplements are pretty much all either animal based or based in exploitation. this doesn't get to the part where this is not a viable option for the overwhelming majority of humanity due to things like resource distribution, potential expenses (because veganism and vegetarianism are overwhelmingly white, middle-class western diets and well out of the expense range of most of humanity), the existence of things such as food deserts (which in unison with the previously mentioned expenses is a death blow to the viability of it for most people)...
which would suggest it is not an objective thing, but a subjective, moral call for people to make. which is what i said.
no, because animals are categorically not comparable to humans, full stop. there is a hard-to-define but clear gulf between even the most intelligent animal or the most conscious animal. humans are categorically superior on most levels to basically all animals because we have the ability to make complex decisions that other animals cannot come close to. moreover, human ethics are not and have never been consistent. reality is complicated, and nuance is a thing that goes into every ethical judgement people make. expecting blanket judgments is an exercise in futility and is laughable.
well, for starters: is it ethical to exist at all as a human if your very existence is ultimately predicated on the exploitation of other beings, at that point?
Do you not think empathy for living beings and avoiding to harm them is about morals? What else are morals, then?
The amount of time that something has been happening is not at all linked with how harmful it is to the victims. Indeed, the fact that it has been going on so long just underlines how harmful it has been, because the death toll is so high it will never be calculated, and has been entirely unnecessary since we were able to harvest crops successfully. With this attitude nothing would ever change in society, and things that used to happen for hundreds of years like slavery and so on would continue today just because that's what has been happening.
You're probably talking about B12, the only vitamin not naturally occuring in plant matter. It's usually associated with animal products, but fact is that bacteria produce B12. As such, it becomes a simple question of - are you going to get B12 from the bacteria in isolation, or are you going to exploit and kill billions of animals just to get B12 from the bacteria within their bodies? In addition, a B12 supplement is injected into livestock to keep their levels up due to top soil being too intensively used and lacking in certain nutrients. So the choice becomes even more absurd - either take a B12 supplement, or give an animal a B12 supplement then kill them. Why take the second option?
There are plenty of entirely vegan supplements out there so this claim has no basis.
Are you conveniently ignoring the 50% vegetarian population of India, a very much not-white, not-western country?
Common staples like bread, rice, pasta, beans, oats, vegetables are among the cheapest foods. You might say that vegan substitute meats etc are expensive - and while that can sometimes be true, they are entirely unnecessary for a healthy diet.
Here's a good read on this issue: https://veganethos.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/america-food-deserts-and-abolitionist-veganism/
Apart from that, this is not a core argument against veganism. This is a reason why some people might have a hard time going vegan, yes, but you do realize that "food deserts are a thing that exists and that's why I personally won't go vegan" is pretty bad reasoning?
I don't see how that makes it subjective? We're talking about harm reduction. Humans have empathy, for animals too, so why would you choose "potential harm to human workers plus inevitable harm to animals" over "potential harm to human workers" if your goal is to reduce harm?
Intelligence is not a valid justification for taking life. To put this as simply as possible, cats, dogs and hamsters are not as intelligent as us. But most people would be appalled to think of that as a reason to kill or harm them. Also, choosing not to harm animals is not the same as saying they are human or treating them as human. All animals are different, and require different treatment by us. It doesn't make sense on a practical level to treat any animal as human, or to treat any animal as any other type of animal. But, that's no reason to be harming them, simply because they are not human. Cats and dogs are not human, but it doesn't mean that you have "humanized" them just because you didn't slit their throat.
Humans will always have a negative impact on the environment and other beings while they're alive, you're right with that. But why would you choose to consciously, willingly inflict even more harm upon them when there's no reason for you to do so and there are enough alternatives to avoid this harm?
Perhaps in the US, but far from it globally.
Vegetarianism By Country (2010)
By raw numbers:
By population percent:
I completely agree, homemade oat milk is so god damn cheap and easy I can have like 5 bowls of cereal a day
This sounds like a good idea. Its already in use for bottled water,fill up a reusable bottle,or drop off and get a new one. I remember returning soda bottles for deposit(missed the milkman era,sadly). Always wondered why we moved away from it, and find it funny some companies are circling back to it. Sometimes, the old ways are better,after all.