commie

a 80% cut has an impact! so does 50%.

i don't think so. i don't think it matters what you do in the grocery store or in a restaurant.

You don’t have to be a rabid vegan to make an impact.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL

the fact is that the industry continues to grow.

this is warmed-over poore-nemecek 2018. that's the primary basis for the claims about the climate, but the methodology of that study is fucked, and it's a disservice to actual climate science to keep touting this meta"study" that misuses its source material and myopically focuses on distilling data instead of understanding the complexity of our agricultural systems. the textile industry's water use, land use, and emissions, i guarantee, are being counted in poore-nemecek as emissions from beef. i didn't pull out the data from the separate reference to water use, but i will eat my hat if that doesn't, as well.

eating less beef has not been effective at stopping the growth of the beef industry for all the people who have done so. we need a real solution, and trying to influence individual consumer choice isn't working.

edit: down voting doesn't change the truth

stop wasting both of our time.

you’re free to not respond at any time.

Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation.

can you substantiate this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNPV5c2Verc

I'm surprised you don't have a better understanding of exploitation

you have no idea what my understanding is. that's not the subject of our discussion. don't make this personal.

we are discussing the vegan society's understanding.

the barest definition is a synonym of "use". the vegan society could clear up this ambiguity but they have chosen not to do so, and there is no reason to assume they prefer a special definition of exploitation.

The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent,

no, it's not. it's exploitation by the barest definition, like exploiting a fallow field or a forest. the definition of exploitation can by synonymously defined as "use". using a corpse is exploiting it. using a corpse which has, with informed consent, been consigned for use is still exploitation.

if the vegan society wants to create an additional carve-out for consensual exploitation in addition to its exceptions for practicability and possibility, it's not as though they are unaware of these concepts. they have not done so, and there is no reason to believe they mean to do so.

Your assertion was that consent isn’t at all relevant to veganism in regards to exploitation. However, if there exist situations in which consent could relieve the existence of exploitation then it must be relevant to consider.

it's not clear that the vegan society would allow for any exploitation, consensual or otherwise, and to the extent that sometimes people consent to being exploited, there is no reason to believe that exploitation ceases to exist in those cases.

three mentions across 2 paragraphs. all of the mentions imply that consent would somehow relieve accusations of exploitation, but that isn't established in your article for a certainty, and at best i'd say it's debatable. i don't care to debate about it. it's clear that the vulgar use of the term is unrelated entirely.