@pinkprius uhm… I bet I can easily suggest even bigger way. Radical, even.

@pinkprius easy: end one's life and you will have NO impact on environment.

What I'm saying is that if we only consider one part of the equation, environmental impact, it's the only logical choice to make. But if we add quality of life on the other end, then veganism may not necessarily hit a sweet spot. For some (many?) it just makes life bleak enough as to not warrant preserving the environment for it.

@isagalaev Most of us think as individuals when the impact of our choices impact society. Would we keep doing the things we're doing to damage the ecosystem if it was certain our children will die due to these actions? The argument of ending life to help the environment is not ethic from any point of view nor is logical. What you can do is plan to have less children for example. The point of environmental is to minimize our impact not to diminish our quality of life.

@pinkprius one doesn't go without the other, you can't ignore quality of life in these discussions and just say "veganism is better". My other problem with this position is its absolutism: you're talking about minimizing the effect of meat producing, not merely reducing it, even though it might be a viable sustainable option. But it looks like you're already coming from the angle of meat eating being immoral for some reason and use environment as a justification.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

chaos.social - because anarchy is much more fun with friends.
chaos.social is a small Mastodon instance for and by the Chaos community surrounding the Chaos Computer Club. We provide a small community space - Be excellent to each other, and have a look at what that means around here.
Follow @ordnung for low-traffic instance-related updates.
The primary instance languages are German and English.