I understand that fully, trust me, but I only control my own actions. I do not care enough about the issues surrounding meat production to take that action knowing I will not enact any change. If I cared enough about those issues, I wouldn’t care if anyone else followed. (As you have).
That logic only applies on an individual basis, and has to be weighed against how much you care about something.
I feel you have my point confused, you think I said: “There is ZERO scientific evidence that humans abstaining from eating meat would have a positive impact on our world.”
I said: “There is ZERO scientific evidence humans should not eat meat.”
What do you mean you’ll have no impact?? You realised for every piece of meat you don’t eat, that’s less demand for an animal to be killed right? Not to mention the significant reduction in carbon emissions. That’s not including the change you impart on others. I was convinced to go vegan, and I’ve convinced others as well.
Your first point is just straight out wrong. Do you vote? Or is the fact your vote doesn’t single handedly decide the election enough to dissuade? Your logic could be used by a murderer to go “well, there’s murder in the world that I can’t stop, so I might as well keep murdering!”. Very very broken logic.
I agree with you the only argument against veganism is “I don’t care”. But then you must accept you are a person who knowingly commits bas deeds, deeds you could easily stop today, but choose not to out of greed.
And your third point is just weird? If you accept that scientific discourse agreed abstaining from meat has a worldly positive impact, isn’t that enough? Or is the scientifically supported increase in life expectancy associated with veganism not enough?
I choose not to because I do not care enough to make that decision when it will have no impact. Even if my vote has no impact, I care much more about who gets elected.
I care much more about whether humans should dietarily eat meat than whether abstaining from eating it has monetary or carbon benefits.
so if I’m a ceo trying to not waste money, and my margin for acceptable wasted product is 90% sold 10% unsold, even one person worth of lost sales of meat has a definite possibility of making me buy less next shipment. Even if they’re buying it by the giant crate, if I’m buying meat crates according to a formula, your 1 purchase could be the one that sways me for or against buying another. Do that over the course of 10 years and this turns from a possibility to essentially guaranteed.
While I get this, maybe it’s better to look at it as the individual animals you’re saving. Red cross members know there are hundreds of millions of lives they can’t save, and the world should change to where these people don’t need the help, but they’re still saving the life of someone here and now. A cow is maybe “less” than a human life, but you’re saving them a lifetime of suffering.
Even just reducing meat to where it’s not a huge annoyance can still make a big difference.
I understand that fully, trust me, but I only control my own actions. I do not care enough about the issues surrounding meat production to take that action knowing I will not enact any change. If I cared enough about those issues, I wouldn’t care if anyone else followed. (As you have).
That logic only applies on an individual basis, and has to be weighed against how much you care about something.
I feel you have my point confused, you think I said: “There is ZERO scientific evidence that humans abstaining from eating meat would have a positive impact on our world.”
I said: “There is ZERO scientific evidence humans should not eat meat.”
What do you mean you’ll have no impact?? You realised for every piece of meat you don’t eat, that’s less demand for an animal to be killed right? Not to mention the significant reduction in carbon emissions. That’s not including the change you impart on others. I was convinced to go vegan, and I’ve convinced others as well.
Your first point is just straight out wrong. Do you vote? Or is the fact your vote doesn’t single handedly decide the election enough to dissuade? Your logic could be used by a murderer to go “well, there’s murder in the world that I can’t stop, so I might as well keep murdering!”. Very very broken logic.
I agree with you the only argument against veganism is “I don’t care”. But then you must accept you are a person who knowingly commits bas deeds, deeds you could easily stop today, but choose not to out of greed.
And your third point is just weird? If you accept that scientific discourse agreed abstaining from meat has a worldly positive impact, isn’t that enough? Or is the scientifically supported increase in life expectancy associated with veganism not enough?
I choose not to because I do not care enough to make that decision when it will have no impact. Even if my vote has no impact, I care much more about who gets elected.
I care much more about whether humans should dietarily eat meat than whether abstaining from eating it has monetary or carbon benefits.
so if I’m a ceo trying to not waste money, and my margin for acceptable wasted product is 90% sold 10% unsold, even one person worth of lost sales of meat has a definite possibility of making me buy less next shipment. Even if they’re buying it by the giant crate, if I’m buying meat crates according to a formula, your 1 purchase could be the one that sways me for or against buying another. Do that over the course of 10 years and this turns from a possibility to essentially guaranteed.
I dont care enough to make that small of an impact.
While I get this, maybe it’s better to look at it as the individual animals you’re saving. Red cross members know there are hundreds of millions of lives they can’t save, and the world should change to where these people don’t need the help, but they’re still saving the life of someone here and now. A cow is maybe “less” than a human life, but you’re saving them a lifetime of suffering.
Even just reducing meat to where it’s not a huge annoyance can still make a big difference.