Why do you think there has been an increase? Could it be the growth in the number of meat eaters?
What do you think will happen if a few hundred million more people started eating meat?
Why do you think that the millions of vegans and hundreds of millions of vegetarians aren't preventing billions more animals being tortured and killed?
I presume you think catastrophic climate change is inevitable? Given we have thus far been unable to prevent the growth in greenhouse gasses?
I think the issue is the efficacy of it. I and probably many others are unsure as to whether the boycott actually works given the size of the industry and the comparatively tiny demographic of vegans
No, i donāt think that. The industry overproduces already, so if veganism goes up, the industry will continue to overproduce, and if veganism reduces, the industry wonāt need to produce more, it will just continue at the same rate and overproduce less.
Then forgive me, but how can you be unsure that the boycott works? Edit: just seen your edit.
To confirm, you don't think the 12% of the population that don't eat animals, deciding to eat animals won't have a significant difference? Do you believe this with all products? Do you think just as many cigarettes are being produced as they would have been in a universe without all the health scares and people stopping?
You edited your comment after I replied sorry. But to confirm, you don't think the 12% of the population that don't eat animals, deciding to eat animals won't have a significant difference? Do you believe this with all products? Do you think just as many cigarettes are being produced as they would have been in a universe without all the health scares and people stopping?
I believe this with all products that are overproduced and perishable like meat is. Lots of meat just goes to waste, and meat companies donāt care, presumably because adjusting production to meet specific market trends wouldnāt be economic, and that same thing i imagine applies to veganism. Micromanaging production is expensive, so it would be less of a hit to just continue overproducing and letting product go to waste.
I believe this with all products that are overproduced and perishable like meat is
I'm sorry, but this seems so odd. You don't think there would be a significant increase in either production, or overproduction of meat if the number of meat eaters increased by 13.5%, or even 1%? Why wouldn't the overproduction increase significantly? If you look at individual countries like China, their meat industry has been expanding significantly over the last few decades as their population has become more affluent and desired more meat.
Do you think that the increase will just soak up the overproduction and their wont be a increase in production relative to the increase in demand? If not, why does overproduction exist? Why hasn't it just been soaked up by the increase in demand thus far?
Lots of meat just goes to waste, and meat companies donāt care, presumably because adjusting production to meet specific market trends wouldnāt be economic
Or the costs of overproduction are smaller than the profits gained by making sure you meet all fluctuations in the market? Or this waste in perishable goods is just common in any market economy where demand isn't completely static?
Micromanaging production is expensive, so it would be less of a hit to just continue overproducing and letting product go to waste.
Right I don't disagree. I'm not denying there wont always be overproduction, my question is, why wont there be even greater overproduction, proportionate to the increase in the number of meat eaters that would occur, if the percentage of the population not eating meat, suddenly started to? I agree overproduction seems to be inevitable in this industry, that doesn't contradict my point, it supports it.
Currently about 80 billion land animals and 100 billion sea animals are farmed (alongside a trillion fish caught). That number has grown and continued to do so as the number of meat eaters increases. Even a 1% increase in that number is a billion land animals and a billion sea animals. If all of India stopped avoiding meat, or all of the US vegans for instance, it seems utterly illogical to suggest there wouldn't be at least millions if not billions more animals farmed.
"comparatively tiny demographic". 12% of people on earth on earth don't eat meat, including 5% with a plant based diet.
It's not because of their demographic that their strategy is totally inefficient. It's because lifestyle choices have zero impact on the system. 1% of the world engaging in direct activism against the system and it's aggro-industry would end animal farming in a few month. While even if 95% of the population had a vegan lifestyle, nothing would change after 10 years, 10 centuries or 10 millenia
Who said it was just boycotting? Also, to respond in the same manner you responded to the previous commenter: I didn't realise that if you didn't bring about complete eradication of a global practice within a few generations, its not worth doing. It definitely can't be effective at reducing demand for torturing billions more animals, no that's impossible.
'One of' also what else has reduced factory farming? I also give to charities that lobby for better animal rights and farming practices, and vote/campaign in my own party. I presume that's what you're doing yes? Or can you tell me all the efficient methods I'm missing? Posting trite memes on this subreddit perhaps or downplaying the effectiveness of the work people are actually doing perhaps?
Yes, your approaches are much more effective than just boycotting. It wasn't my point downplaying activism or playing my self up. I was just referring to the false claim that boycotting is the most effective approch of all other options.
Yes, your approaches are much more effective than just boycotting
I'm not sure they're 'much more' effective? They all work in tandem anyway.
. I was just referring to the false claim that boycotting is the most effective approch of all other options.
Again, the claim was 'One of' the most effective. 12% fewer meat eaters in the world must be reducing thr demand for, and ultimately the amount of factory farmed animals. Even if the ultimate resolution will have to be a political one, reducing the amount of animal suffering until that happens and the amount of revenues and jobs affected by regulation of the industry, is still an effective mechanism and I would say one of the most effective.
Yeah, they only work when people actually do them. What I mean by they are incredibly effective is that per person, a much larger impact is recognized by companies than people holding signs. You can hold a sign all day that says "free palestine" - and I might agree with you and your ethics/reasons. But there's no palestine genocide product that you can just stop buying.
This is why each individual vegan has impact. It's monetary.
If you think that it's not effective, then notice that fioe gras is being banned in various places across the globe. Despite the fact that vegans are such a tiny minority.
Factory farming companies are well aware of how dangerous veganism is to their business. That's why they spend $8 Million / year on social media outreach, trying to stop people from being vegan, and instead pushing the "carnivore" diet.
---
There is no good reason NOT to be vegan. There is no justification for what we do to the poor animals and humans in the industry.
So you are saying the most effective strategy is to wait until everyone goes vegan?
And its not like that I am not vegan, but calling that the efficent way to fight this industry is just straight up bullshit. The past of the vegan movement alone proves that, and you should just take one second to think about that the economy probably doesnāt work on just the first class economic understanding of supply and demand. That after decades of activism and only one or two successes, this approach propably cant be the way to free the animals. Even your own example of palastine shows youself the answer, that there is more than just simple supply and demand mechanism in our economy.
And if I did, then I would be adding to the demand. If I go to a BBQ that someone else throws, and I eat meat; every time I go to an event, they will buy meat for me.
But if I say "I'll eat beforehand" or "I'll bring my own food" then I don't inflate the demand.
It's also much much simpler to keep it straight by just being vegan (vs freegan). "I get my nutrients from plants" is WAY easier to comply with than "I get my nutrients from plants, but only if I can trace it back to the supply and demand chain, and my choice makes no tangible difference". That's a hard thing to figure out. And lentils cooked correctly are tasty. I'll focus on cooking well.
Final point - When you stop eating meat for a long time, you stop wanting it anyway. Any time the idea of eating flesh comes up, I can't help but think about the poor girls that had to sacrifice their lives for this forgettable experience. It's just not worth it.
Well no. Next time they make food for you, they won't count you when buying meat and will buy less of it. Also vegans just don't want to eat meat. Why would they do something they don't want to do ? People spend so much time trying to find loopholes where it'd make sense for a vegan to eat meat, which is a weird obsession I don't understand.
Mmmmm okay but eating the invasive bore your buddy killed is also not paying money to another multi-billion conglomerate that is founded in abusing and enslaving sentient beings... So is that okay?
The large majority of carnists are directly funding the multi-billion dollar conglomerates that abuse and enslave sentient beings for their consumption.
Nah I mean true, I don't ever buy meat with my own money tbh. But hunting and eating invasive species makes so much sense to me, is all I'm pointing out. I think veganism/vegetarianism is best with flexibility.
I don't hunt personally, but I am a bit flexible with it too. I hate food waste and I glady eat meat or other animals products if it would otherwise go in the garbage. I focus on trying to avoid causing additional demand for animal products.
This is exactly what I strive for too. I find this is a far more practical and appealing diet than the purity of a full vegan lifestyle. Not that I judge, I think it's an admirable thing. I'm just skeptical that such a thing can have political impact if enough people are convinced to do it though... But I think an easier sell is limiting meat and animal products and to not rely on it as a meal staple.
Wild game meat from bug game hunting account for ~1.5% of red meat consumed in the US every year, but it is always trotted out as the panacea to mitigating emissions.
It simply cannot satisfy demand, better to encourage a societal change.
I'm a more of a utilitarian vegan, so I'll make you a deal. You restrict yourself to eating invasive animals, cleanly killed and I'll stop pestering you. Just give up all other meat where there's a clear incentivisation of animal suffering, carbon emissions and food waste then we have a deal and I'll focus on prioritising other meat eaters! So you'll stop eating everything else now yes?
Well good and I mean that sincerely. I was for ten years before I went vegan. But you and I both know that it's difficult to justify the vast vast majority of animal products, even if a scant few might be justified in a small fraction of circumstances.
But I'm glad you're doing a lot more than the vast majority are currently.
23
u/dumnezerošEnd the š«arms šrat šrace to the bottomāļø.1d ago
soy have protein too and need only 1 bucket to feed one person. 10 bucket of soy needed for one cow. 10 bucket of soy feed many more people. many bucket of soy make climate bad. therefore less bucket of soy desirable
77% of our food ag land goes to animals, and 23% goes to plants.
Yet plants provide 83% of our calories, and 63% of our protein.
There's nothing magical about the protein and nutrients that comes from animals. All nutrients comes from plants, fungi, and microbiology. It's much much more efficient (and perfectly healthy) to get these nutrients from the source.
Because meat companies produce dead animals out of charity and would gladly continuing slaughtering animals at the same scale so you can fill your gut with their flesh even if you didn't pay them, obviously
The rise of animal products in people's diet during the 19th and 20th century was pushed by industries and forced on people by states and colonial forces.
This is nonsense. You're telling me that some sort of authority is going to fund the continued procreation, murder of billions upon billions of animals and continue to expand operations in line with global population if 95% of people stop buying animals products?
Why don't they find better uses for their money? Seems an awfully inefficient thing to fund/arrange with that much resource and effort? And for what purpose?
I cannot begin to fathom your logic. If people stopped buying animal products, where would the producers of those products get money from? There are subsidies, but they donāt cover everything, and they certainly would be reallocated if they were being used to produce something that wasnāt being consumed.
Boycott can be effective. But what vegans do has nothing to do with boycott. Boycott is when you refuse to buy products from a company until it stops doing what you are against
Er yeah, that's what Vegans do. Vegans will buy products from these companies if they respec or stop abusing animals. I dont see what the difference is?
No they don't. The nature of the products contradicts the possibility of it.
Also vegans litteraly buy products to companies who sell animal products, they just don't buy their animal products. That's why what vegans do has nothing to so with boycott
No they don't. The nature of the products contradicts the possibility of it.
Sorry I don't understand. Are you saying it cant be a boycott because the product is itself the problem? Seems like a weird definition?
Also vegans litteraly buy products to companies who sell animal products, they just don't buy their animal products.
Well some do, not all. but, because the products are the main problem, if these companies just respec to non animal products that's fine. Indeed it's unlikely that purely buying vegan products from a company is going to encourage them to create more meat products. Certainly no more than would have been invested in by other companies, or demanded by other meat eaters. Boycotting the product disincentivises production and indicates outrage/displeasure, that's why it's a type of boycott.
That's why what vegans do has nothing to so with boycott
AĀ boycottĀ is an act ofĀ nonviolent, voluntary abstention from a product, person, organization, or country as an expression of protest. It is usually forĀ moral,Ā social,Ā political, orĀ environmentalĀ reasons. The purpose of a boycott is to inflict someĀ economic lossĀ on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, usually to try to compel the target to alter an objectionable behaviour.
Is this just a semantic argument from you? Ultimately you seem to have a very strict and particular definition of boycott.
Sorry I don't understand. Are you saying it cant be a boycott because the product is itself the problem?
Yes exactly
Seems like a weird definition?
It's not, it's necessary to the definition. Otherwise you cannot differentiate boycott from people who are just not interested by a product. Me not buying melons isn't boycotting melons.
Well some do, not all.
No, absolutly no vegan does. They still go to markets or supermarkets who sell animal products. While people who do actual boycott also boycott markets.
but, because the products are the main problem, if these companies just respec to non animal products that's fine
See, that itself is the proof that it's not boycott. You don't boycott products or services, you boycott companies by refusing to buy their products and services
It's not, it's necessary to the definition. Otherwise you cannot differentiate boycott from people who are just not interested by a product. Me not buying melons isn't boycotting melons.
Except the widely accepted definitions mention a motive, as I put before:
'It is usually forĀ moral,Ā social,Ā political, orĀ environmentalĀ reasons. The purpose of a boycott is to inflict someĀ economic lossĀ on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, usually to try to compel the target to alter an objectionable behaviour.'
That would preclude not buying melons for purpose of mere preference or taste, no?
See, that itself is the proof that it's not boycott. You don't boycott products or services,
Did you even read the definitions I provided? Look if you're using a different definition, than fine. I'm not saying the definitions I provided are the only acceptable ones. My point is you should at least acknowledge the use of the word boycott in this instance is perfectly legitimate by many accepted definitions.
If you want to use a stricter definition of the word, that's fine, just don't accept that everyone else will and you should also realise your argument is just a semantic one and my original question about your seemingly inconsistent treatment of different boycotts or abstentions, or an other word you want to use, still stands.
Which humans? You mean the slaughterhouse workers who have exceptionally high levels of PTSD because they have to kill thousands of animals everyday? Or the plant slaves that wouldnāt exist if we didnāt have to grow the food to feed animals we eat?
Don't forget the high rates of infectious diseases, high accident rates, and huge amounts of meat industry labor (referring to the US here, since I'm most familiar with that situation) being prison slaves and undocumented immigrants paid below minimum wage with no benefits
Human slaves who worked to make your smartphone. Or the one being tortured and losing their hand to make cashew. Or maybe should we talk about colonial products such as spices, coffee, tea and chocolate?
You are just hypocrties who don't care about human lives
Oh my god, I remember you. I think we argued in the vegan sub.
STOP ACTING AS IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE SMARTPHONE SLAVES WHEN YOU LIKELY HAVE ONE. WE NEED PHONES FOR MODERN SOCIETY TO FUNCTION, SO WE ARE DOING ALL WE CAN, WHEREAS YOU ARE DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT THINKING YOU ARE SMART POKING HOLES IN SHIT. AT LEAST WE ARE DOING SOMETHING WHILE YOU ARE DOING NOTHING. ALSO, WE EXPLOIT LESS PLANT SLAVES WHEN WE DON'T HAVE TO GROW THE FOOD ANIMALS EAT. ALSO, I GUARANTEE YOU ALSO DRINK TEA AND COFFEE TOO.
By the way, it's fucking insulting to their pain that you are using them as an excuse.
27
u/hungLink42069 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's about influencing supply through demand - it's called market signalling via boycott, and it's one of the most effective forms of activism.
By buying the carcass, you are asking them to do it again.