Obvious solution in our face, we fund research to preserve AGW causing industries

[TimCallahan]

Cute, but no. Context and reading comprehension should be enough to tell you I was referring to the constituent parts of each group (the needlessly produced GHG), not the percentages themselves. If you flunked English, I will forgive your insult .

One could argue that there is declining harm, because a lower total atmospheric number does less harm, but we are not in the position to do such maths. And again, that is not as simplistic as you were making it.

I probably should have left out the bit about flunking math. That was a bit snarky. However any significant lessening of the production of GHG is beneficial, and I still say that cutting back on beef consumption is not a cop out. Bear in mind also that people may well transition into a pure vegan diet through steps. Eating less and less meat may well convince them that they don't need it at all.

Why are people acting like I wrote a campaign platform? I do analysis, not politicking. If people are so attached to animal consumption that they destroy their environment, it changes nothing of the analysis or my (or your or anyone's) responsibility.

If you and I and others on this thread can agree that excessive dependence on beef, in particular, poses a grave threat to the environment, then, logically, it would be a good idea to have some impact on beef consumption, the greater the better. Therefore, it's reasonable to speculate on how we might get people to consume less meat. I think you will agree that force is not an option. Education might help, as well as introduction to non-western cuisines that are either meat-free or at least use a lot less meat. Do you have any ideas on the subject?

 

[Unabogie]

Got my results back. It should not be a surprise that my cholesterol is very low since I don't ingest any. My "CBC" test also came back normal. My doctor's advice: keep taking vitamins and eat a well balanced diet.

 

[Kahalachan]

Ah ah, I'm not going to let you dodge from your original point, mostly because I thought of another objection! The current predicament is not one where we have the luxury of waiting to see how one (or three) solutions will pan out. It begs the question of when you decide that course is no longer viable and will take up the other, and what how much worse the situation will be at that point.

But anyway, this response seems to be the common shirking of responsibility in this thread. Your worrying about the campaigning to "other people" does not change the facts as they apply to yourself. And if you invoke the composition fallacy I will not buy it.

It's not a composition fallacy. I as an individual do not want to make this switch. I am positive society as a whole does not want to make this switch either.

And I hope this smiley meant I wasn't putting forth a serious argument and just saying personally I won't make the switch.

I admit, I am going to shirk responsibility and put my selfish meat eating desires above the planet's rising global temperature. Logic isn't going to work on people who would willingly ignore it. This is really why I don't bother to debate religious people that often and why you should understand that you really can't convince me, and many others like me, that we should give up meat.

So then, knowing your suggestion is likely to going to have a similar effect on a great multitude of people, why not come up with a solution we can gradually work towards to at least make a minor difference if it can't make the major difference you desire?

 

[Unabogie]

It's not a composition fallacy. I as an individual do not want to make this switch. I am positive society as a whole does not want to make this switch either.

And I hope this smiley meant I wasn't putting forth a serious argument and just saying personally I won't make the switch.

I admit, I am going to shirk responsibility and put my selfish meat eating desires above the planet's rising global temperature. Logic isn't going to work on people who would willingly ignore it. This is really why I don't bother to debate religious people that often and why you should understand that you really can't convince me, and many others like me, that we should give up meat.

So then, knowing your suggestion is likely to going to have a similar effect on a great multitude of people, why not come up with a solution we can gradually work towards to at least make a minor difference if it can't make the major difference you desire?

Because every solution to AGW gets the same response? Other people are just as adamant that they don't give up their SUVs or their green lawns or whatever it is that they find necessary, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that we're heading into a crisis.

If that's true, then waiting for some 21st century innovation is foolhardy, if the other solution is to eat more veggies and sub out your meat for something else more than you do. You're basically saying that if you're not completely satisfied with something then that's the only concern, ignoring the crisis in front of you.

 

[Aepervius]

Aside from the fact that vegan food is nutritious and delightful, if what tasted good to you were the only criteria, wouldn't cannibalism be both moral and legal if you really liked eating people and it made you happy? Would there be a moral conundrum for you to adopt large dogs at the shelter to be used for food? Do you not make moral choices in your diet at all?

Firstly Vegan food is delicious to YOU.

Secondly jumping to cannibalism is what we call a strawman.

As for dog, it is delicious though a bit "wild taste". Not sure what race of dog I ate though.

 

[Aepervius]

People who consider meat eating, sex, and videogames to be pleasures that the lack of which would cause diminished enjoyment in life alike should be removed from the gene pool.

Woot. I think that the conversation is ended right there.

Find me some study of quality of life or happiness that reflects this insane idea that a loss of a sense pleasure equates to a reduced enjoyment in life.

I will let other reflect on what you jsut said. Me I am only shaking my head.

 

[The_Animus]

Hey now cannibalism is a good option too! Eating half the population could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50%!

 

[Aepervius]

And DFYI a much better response to the food problem and AGW would be to lead people to education and make far less kids. A earth with 500 million people can splurge in whatever food they want, that a earth running toward 8 billion feels more impact.

Yet I do not see you attacking the main problem : the number of people on earth. I see you attacking a secondary problem due to the primary impact of numbers.

*shrug*. I guess we will never meet in the middle on that one.

 

[Aepervius]

Hey now cannibalism is a good option too! Eating half the population could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50%!

A very swiftian way of handling AGW. I like it.

 

[Unabogie]

Firstly Vegan food is delicious to YOU.

Secondly jumping to cannibalism is what we call a strawman.

As for dog, it is delicious though a bit "wild taste". Not sure what race of dog I ate though.

That's not a strawman at all. I didn't ascribe to you views that you don't hold because they're easy to knock down, I pointed out to you that your logic doesn't extend as far as you think it does. That's why you would never eat people or accept that someone else does, even if they think it's delicious.

And yes, vegan food is delicious for everyone. Have you never tasted a dish called "french fries"?

 

[Kahalachan]

Because every solution to AGW gets the same response? Other people are just as adamant that they don't give up their SUVs or their green lawns or whatever it is that they find necessary, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that we're heading into a crisis.

If that's true, then waiting for some 21st century innovation is foolhardy, if the other solution is to eat more veggies and sub out your meat for something else more than you do. You're basically saying that if you're not completely satisfied with something then that's the only concern, ignoring the crisis in front of you.

Yes, people are going to ignore the radical solutions. So compromise is required to make that little change to gradually go in the right direction.

Go for a more eco-friendly SUV. Pander to the selfish desire to save on gas money. Eat one less hamburger per week. Pander to the desire to be more healthy.

These are attainable goals people are willing to accomplish.

So again I ask, why not at least push for that minor change that helps, than propose radical ideas that wouldn't be adopted and make no change whatsoever?

 

[Modified]

And yes, vegan food is delicious for everyone. Have you never tasted a dish called "french fries"?

But those fried in lard are far superior.

 

[TimCallahan]

I probably should have left out the bit about flunking math. That was a bit snarky. However any significant lessening of the production of GHG is beneficial, and I still say that cutting back on beef consumption is not a cop out. Bear in mind also that people may well transition into a pure vegan diet through steps. Eating less and less meat may well convince them that they don't need it at all.

If you and I and others on this thread can agree that excessive dependence on beef, in particular, poses a grave threat to the environment, then, logically, it would be a good idea to have some impact on beef consumption, the greater the better. Therefore, it's reasonable to speculate on how we might get people to consume less meat. I think you will agree that force is not an option. Education might help, as well as introduction to non-western cuisines that are either meat-free or at least use a lot less meat. Do you have any ideas on the subject?

Any chance I can get an answer to this post?

Let me point out that a widespread cut-back in beef consumption, even without everyone going completely vegan, could eliminate "Cowshwitz" (possibly not safe for office or school, in any event, not pretty).

 

[Unabogie]

But those fried in lard are far superior.

Rubbish.

Now fries drizzled with truffle oil???

OMG.

 

[s_pepys]

Rubbish.

Now fries drizzled with truffle oil???

OMG.

alongside a juicy rib-eye. hmmm

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And DFYI a much better response to the food problem and AGW would be to lead people to education and make far less kids. A earth with 500 million people can splurge in whatever food they want, that a earth running toward 8 billion feels more impact.

Yet I do not see you attacking the main problem : the number of people on earth. I see you attacking a secondary problem due to the primary impact of numbers.

*shrug*. I guess we will never meet in the middle on that one.

The population "problem" is actually the inverse of the animal situation and other consumption contributions. The first world nations have low birth rates and high meat diets, and the developing nations have high birth rates and low meat diets.

The US is on the road to 400 million by 2050. What more education and will get it lower? The natural progression is that developing nations with access to education, contraception, and affluence will lower their birth rates so that we peak around 9-10 billion. This is all without your plan. What is your "education"?

Actually, let us ignore your actual proposed method and look just at possible population changes. Without genocide, there is no way this is a solution to the actual problem at hand.

As the above situations show, focusing on reducing animal GHG is more rational and effective.

There is also the problem that reducing the human population has downsides in human innovation and achievement in the long run.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Woot. I think that the conversation is ended right there.

Laughable claims about what "other people" think deserve mocking, no?

I will let other reflect on what you jsut said. Me I am only shaking my head.

Uh huh.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well, it's a derail, but the part where you said:



If I were to be denied the opportunity to engage in mutually pleasurable sexual encounters with other people, I believe that would diminish my enjoyment of life, so I disagree with the statement I quoted.

Ah, you missed the key parts:

People who consider meat eating, sex, and videogames to be pleasures that the lack of which would cause diminished enjoyment in life alike should be removed from the gene pool.

I am maintaining that sex is a psychological need, and sexual health is a key part of our health, not a sense pleasure like meat eating or video games. They are not alike and so shouldn't be listed together.

 

[theprestige]

I am maintaining that sex is a psychological need, and sexual health is a key part of our health, not a sense pleasure like meat eating or video games. They are not alike and so shouldn't be listed together.

Serious question: What do you say to those who maintain that sense pleasures are a psychological need, and that sensory health is a key part of our health?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It's not a composition fallacy. I as an individual do not want to make this switch. I am positive society as a whole does not want to make this switch either.

And I hope this smiley meant I wasn't putting forth a serious argument and just saying personally I won't make the switch.

I admit, I am going to shirk responsibility and put my selfish meat eating desires above the planet's rising global temperature. Logic isn't going to work on people who would willingly ignore it. This is really why I don't bother to debate religious people that often and why you should understand that you really can't convince me, and many others like me, that we should give up meat.

That's fine.

So then, knowing your suggestion is likely to going to have a similar effect on a great multitude of people, why not come up with a solution we can gradually work towards to at least make a minor difference if it can't make the major difference you desire?

I think that in social change, you have to have an understanding of what you are doing and why. There is often a reform vs revolution, or moderate vs radical, divide (civil unions vs gay marriage, etc.). Both have their roles.