What if Vegans are Actually Right?

[Brian Peacock]

The funny part is that his claims that it's my imagination, it's just my opinion, it's just flowery language, are all mere unsubstantiated opinions. He's guilty of the thing he accuses me of doing. It's just the pot calling the kettle black.

What a moron.

Nah, mac isn't stoopid, and that he's reduced his meat consumption for environmental reasons is commendable, to whatever degree. Reducing the amount of animal products we consume is one of the most significant contributions we can make to reducing our personal carbon footprint, after flying and cars.

However, mac isn't an average Ozzie, and as overall meat consumption continues to rise in Australia (as in the West generally, despite the rise in people going meat-light, vegetarian or vegan) his 'thought-leader' claims run headlong into some plain economic and ecological facts - cheaper imported meat is fuelling Australia's overall rise in consumption, where a rise in consumption necessitates a rise in the environmental impacts of production unless, that is, Australia's increased consumption is somehow being offset by taking meat out of the mouths of others.

When you tell mac that "the effects of what you are doing aren't significant enough to matter" I'm basically agreeing, but I'm also encouraging him to continue, because while 'eating for the environment' is good it needs to be accompanied by other actions that challenge and change the fundamentals and the consequentials of our economies in animal derivatives to have a meaningful global impact.

He isn't stupid, but he relies on cheap debate tactics instead of substantial argument. If the project Mac thinks he's a part of won't or can't be completed, then his actions are irrational. The major indicators are that it's all too little too late. I don't care if someone wants to be irrational or emotional, but to deny it when they're clearly acting out of emotion, which such concerns about future generations are, then you're being ridiculous.

I think our rational and emotional selves are, to some degree, complimentary and necessary to being an authentic human being, and yet the difficult thing is always to notice when we're leading, or being led, by one or the other. Our rational and emotional capacities are a product of our evolutionary past and both are expressed in response to the multiplex of environments we find ourselves in as modern humans - whether personal, familial, social, political, economic or environmental. Rationality can help us understand things and solve problems creatively and emotionality can help guide our reactions to things and prepare us for action. I think concerns about future generations can be legitimate motivations for present-day action and can have a basis in both rational and emotional camps together, simply because there is no hard distinction or dichotomy between those camps in our everyday experience. We are emotional rational beings (on the whole!).

[rasetsu]

The funny part is that his claims that it's my imagination, it's just my opinion, it's just flowery language, are all mere unsubstantiated opinions. He's guilty of the thing he accuses me of doing. It's just the pot calling the kettle black.

What a moron.

Nah, mac isn't stoopid, and that he's reduced his meat consumption for environmental reasons is commendable, to whatever degree. Reducing the amount of animal products we consume is one of the most significant contributions we can make to reducing our personal carbon footprint, after flying and cars.

However, mac isn't an average Ozzie, and as overall meat consumption continues to rise in Australia (as in the West generally, despite the rise in people going meat-light, vegetarian or vegan) his 'thought-leader' claims run headlong into some plain economic and ecological facts - cheaper imported meat is fuelling Australia's overall rise in consumption, where a rise in consumption necessitates a rise in the environmental impacts of production unless, that is, Australia's increased consumption is somehow being offset by taking meat out of the mouths of others.

When you tell mac that "the effects of what you are doing aren't significant enough to matter" I'm basically agreeing, but I'm also encouraging him to continue, because while 'eating for the environment' is good it needs to be accompanied by other actions that challenge and change the fundamentals and the consequentials of our economies in animal derivatives to have a meaningful global impact.

He isn't stupid, but he relies on cheap debate tactics instead of substantial argument. If the project Mac thinks he's a part of won't or can't be completed, then his actions are irrational. The major indicators are that it's all too little too late. I don't care if someone wants to be irrational or emotional, but to deny it when they're clearly acting out of emotion, which such concerns about future generations are, then you're being ridiculous.

I think our rational and emotional selves are, to some degree, complimentary and necessary to being an authentic human being, and yet the difficult thing is always to notice when we're leading, or being led, by one or the other. Our rational and emotional capacities are a product of our evolutionary past and both are expressed in response to the multiplex of environments we find ourselves in as modern humans - whether personal, familial, social, political, economic or environmental. Rationality can help us understand things and solve problems creatively and emotionality can help guide our reactions to things and prepare us for action. I think concerns about future generations can be legitimate motivations for present-day action and can have a basis in both rational and emotional camps together, simply because there is no hard distinction or dichotomy between those camps in our everyday experience. We are emotional rational beings (on the whole!).

That's certainly a question which could have been discussed.

Instead he used dismissiveness to avoid discussion.

[macdoc]

Rae asked a question ...."why would I bother....." ....I answered with "stewardship" which she summarily dismissed with "we all die anyway"

yet Perv understood perfectly in one line.

and now

He's a moron

this is just reason for dismissal of any basis for ongoing conversation....unhappily but not unexpectedly.

Brian then, being condescending in defending that personal attack, gets it wrong. Once more making unsupported opinion about meat consumption ..no references..just opinion....an opinion that is factually wrong.

The Conversation
https://theconversation.com › a-war-on-red-meat-no-ch...
25 Feb 2024 — However, recent trends indicate Australians' beef consumption is in decline. Meat creates almost 60% of greenhouse gas emissions from food production, and red ...

Beef Central
https://www.beefcentral.com › news › opinion-should-re...
24 July 2023 — Beef and pork are the predominant red meats eaten in Australia. The consumption of beef per capita has been declining in Australia for decades.

••••••••
-30-

[Brian Peacock]

...
Brian then, being condescending in defending that personal attack, gets it wrong. Once more making unsupported opinion about meat consumption ..no references..just opinion....an opinion that is factually wrong.

The Conversation
https://theconversation.com › a-war-on-red-meat-no-ch...
25 Feb 2024 — However, recent trends indicate Australians' beef consumption is in decline. Meat creates almost 60% of greenhouse gas emissions from food production, and red ...

Beef Central
https://www.beefcentral.com › news › opinion-should-re...
24 July 2023 — Beef and pork are the predominant red meats eaten in Australia. The consumption of beef per capita has been declining in Australia for decades.

••••••••
-30-

I talked about trends in meat consumption and provided a link to some stats. You're talking about a recent reduction in beef consumption, and while beef production is highly carbon-intensive, and reductions in production will have relative environmental benefits, you i) don't account for the historical trending rise in Australia's overall meat consumption or the increased consumption of other meats as an alternative to beef (notably chicken), ii) you project the recent fall in domestic beef consumption onto production and don't account for domestic production diverted for export, iii) you don't account for other factors influencing domestic beef consumption, such as economic considerations or the impact of climate (fires and flooding) on consumption, production and availability, and iv) while Australia may have reached 'peak meat' you assume the trend will be consistently and irrevocably downwards from now on, and that the trend-baulking recent change in a specific meat product maps onto all meats and are a direct result of a pro-environmental consumer choice at the checkout. Overall you appear to project your personal views and actions as the general norm. I don't think that holds water.

So how about some facts? Humans settlements use around 1% of the Earth's landmass. Livestock grazing and feed production uses around 27%. Crop production for human consumption uses around 7%. To put that in some perspective, about 25% of the planet is forested. Of the 35% of the Earth's landmass used for human settlement, arable and meat production 77% of that land is given over to livestock.

About 44% world’s habitable land (non-ice, non-desert) is employed for agriculture - about 48 million km². Land given over to arable makes up about 33% of all agricultural land, with the remaining c.66% given over to pasture and feed production for livestock.

The carbon, emissions, and other environmental consequences of the lowest-impact animal products far exceed those of vegetable substitutes, bolstering calls for reforming global land-use practices and for radical and rapid dietary change (]Poore et al, 2010) (Winkler et al, 2021) as an effective strategy to address climate change. This is further supported by research showing that transferring to a vegetarian diet produces c.60% less emissions than a meat-inclusive diet (Rippin et al, 2021). It is estimated that if a plant-based diet was adopted on a global scale it would reduce agricultural land use by 75%.

The footprint of our global food systems accounts for around 34% of emissions, with additional concomitant impacts on water use, forestation, biodiversity, and soil health. Of that c.66% of emissions are generated by livestock farming.

In light of this, congratulating yourself as a 'custodian of the future' for choosing to eat a veggie burger here-or-there seems somewhat less than significant, or as rasetsu put it: "You aren't taking care of future generations because the effects of what you are doing aren't significant enough to matter... all it's doing is furnishing you with a smug sense of superiority and relieving some guilt that you might otherwise feel.".

The point I'm making, my 'stance' if you like, is that if we are serious about reducing the third of global emission generated by our global food systems then we need to take a systemic approach, one that prioritises public education about the drivers and impacts of current food production systems, emphasises the positive outcomes of reforming our food production ethos, and ensures the ongoing food security and nutritional well-being of the largest number of people possible. Given the cultural significance and symbolism of meat this is clearly a difficult task, and will necessarily involve sustained discussion, high-quality research and data, a commitment to widespread democratic engagement and diligent political action, and obviously a good helping of economic reform along the way. It probably isn't possible to eradicate meat entirely from the diets of humanity, but aiming for nutritious and healthy global plant-based food systems that are ecologically responsible and restorative and settling for somewhere a lot further down the road towards it than we currently are is a goal worth pursuing - one that reduces harm now and for future generations.

Something to think about the when you come to tell us how delicious your sausages are while booking your next flight online, eh?

[rasetsu]

Good luck getting through to him. I predict it will go in one ear and out the other.

[rasetsu]

Brian then, being condescending in defending that personal attack, gets it wrong. Once more making unsupported opinion about meat consumption ..no references..just opinion....an opinion that is factually wrong.

The Conversation
https://theconversation.com › a-war-on-red-meat-no-ch...
25 Feb 2024 — However, recent trends indicate Australians' beef consumption is in decline. Meat creates almost 60% of greenhouse gas emissions from food production, and red ...

Beef Central
https://www.beefcentral.com › news › opinion-should-re...
24 July 2023 — Beef and pork are the predominant red meats eaten in Australia. The consumption of beef per capita has been declining in Australia for decades.

To recap. Neither of your sources refutes Brian's point. Have a nice day. Moron.

Learn to quote people accurately while you're at it, dingus.

[Brian Peacock]

Good luck getting through to him. I predict it will go in one ear and out the other.

For me, it's not so much about persuading others to change their minds, or 'winning' a debate in the old-fashioned atheist forum sense, as trying to articulate my own learning and perspective so that I'm more considered and considerate in the projects I engage with in the meat world.

[rasetsu]

Good luck getting through to him. I predict it will go in one ear and out the other.

For me, it's not so much about persuading others to change their minds, or 'winning' a debate in the old-fashioned atheist forum sense, as trying to articulate my own learning and perspective so that I'm more considered and considerate in the projects I engage with in the meat world.

I generally avoid debate these days. So what do you use these skills to achieve in the meat world?

[Brian Peacock]

I generally avoid talkimg about that in any detail, but broadly I coordinate a number of projects that help high school students across Scotland collaborate with students from developing countries overseas.

[rasetsu]

I generally avoid talkimg about that in any detail, but broadly I coordinate a number of projects that help high school students across Scotland collaborate with students from developing countries overseas.

I meant more do you use it to persuade and/or argue in real life? How does your real life communication compare?

[Brian Peacock]

I generally avoid talkimg about that in any detail, but broadly I coordinate a number of projects that help high school students across Scotland collaborate with students from developing countries overseas.

I meant more do you use it to persuade and/or argue in real life? How does your real life communication compare?

We develope a broad range of educational resources and activities for students, teachers, and youth workers.

[pErvinalia]

Grooming kids for Marxism!

[Svartalf]

like they need grooming, many youths can be enlisted into communist outfits until realism makes them think again, which for some is never.

[JimC]

What today's youth needs is vast amounts of algebra!

[rasetsu]

I generally avoid talkimg about that in any detail, but broadly I coordinate a number of projects that help high school students across Scotland collaborate with students from developing countries overseas.

I meant more do you use it to persuade and/or argue in real life? How does your real life communication compare?

We develope a broad range of educational resources and activities for students, teachers, and youth workers.

I'm still not being understood. You said you worry less about persuading and winning arguments on the internet than developing your ability to express yourself well. What do you use the ability to express yourself well if it doesn't involve persuading and arguing? What use is eloquence if not put to use to persuade and create change?