https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/8/23863100/tyson-climate-friendly-beef-burger-usda
Tyson Foods and the federal government refuse to show their math for a new sustainability label.
Tyson Foods and the federal government refuse to show their math for a new sustainability label.
Peter Singer the "father of the animal rights movement" and really interesting philosopher, is I think a vegan but he argues for a disclosure number on eggs and chicken saying how many chickens there were per acre, because he argues that IF the chickens lived a happy life and were killed without distress, it's ethical to eat them, and at some really low density the evidence shows they are happy.
He also makes a claim that there are circumstances where it's ethical to eat meat like if the airplane serves you the wrong meal and if you reject it they will throw it away, because the animal is already dead and your decision doesn't incentivize more death, and demanding a new meal wastes food.
So, that's what living true values sounds like to me. Not picking a rule and sticking by it, but taking each decision and weighing it against your values.
but taking each decision and weighing it against your values.
He also claimed that kids with disabilities should be executed and infanticide should be legal up to the age of 30 days.
It sounds like he took a few plane trip, which my explain the second part of that statement.
Har har, I must admit it is rather difficult being on a seven hour flight next to a baby. Especially when you hit lots of turbulence.
That doesn't invalidate the above statement, it just illustrates that he also has abhorant opinions.
People like him make a point of having full consistent systems of thought. So at best his opinion happens to be correct which is not the same as being correct for the right reasons. Even a stopped clock etc.
Also fuck his ablism bullshit
Personally, I find a lot of Peter Singer's arguments to be pretty questionable. As for some of the ones you've mentioned:
For one, killing humans, no matter how humanely the means, is seen by most to be an act of cruelty. I do not want to be killed in my sleep, so why is it okay to assume that animals would be okay with it? While he is a utilitarian and doesn't believe in rights, killing a sentient being seems to me to have much greater negative utility than the positive utility of the enjoyment of eating a chicken.
Also, farming animals for slaughter will always be destructive towards habitats and native species. Even if broiler chickens were kept alive for their natural lifespan of 3-7 years instead of 8 weeks to alleviate any kind of ethical issue with farming them, there is still an opportunity and environmental cost to farming chickens. We could use that land for to cultivate native species and wildlife, or for growing more nutritious and varied crops for people to eat, yet instead we continue to raze the amazon rainforest to make more land for raising farm animals and growing feed. De-densification of farms would only make the demand for farmland even greater than it already is.
Finally, the de-densification of farms would mean a significant increase in the costs of mear production. We'd be pricing lower income groups out of eating meat, while allowing middle- and upper-class folks to carry on consuming animal products as usual. We should not place the burdens of societal progress on the lower class.
But factory farming is completely separate from the scenario of throwing away the entree on the plane.
Mammals are not a source of b12. They get it from their diets. In cows it is artificially supplemented.
It does feel like the opportunity to maintain a diet deemed ethical to oneself is a considerable luxury of our age, not a sustainable human condition.
Peter Singer isn't vegan, he's a utilitarian. Also known as someone who uses "math" to ignore the hard problems in ethics.
Why won't that dreg just die already? The Utility Monster has been known since it's introduction and is an unsolvable problem for them. Also it doesn't actually have calculations, it has opinions with weights. I can argue two radically different courses of actions just by playing with the values I assign to the opinions. Plus humans really do not operate according to it, nothing evolution has done for us would wire us to think and act accordingly.
It's the kinda idea that most people have at least once and then throw it away when they see it can't do anything for them except make them and the people around them miserable. The Good Place had it right.
The ethical problem is weighing a happy life cut short vs no life at all. There's no mathematical solution.
As much as I'm generally on your side, that's not honestly answering the premise, which is that those chickens do live a happy live.
I personally don't seek so-called ethical meat because every example I've looked into has been a lie, and if it does exist it's not worth my time to comb through supply lines in search for a product whose origin I would always worry about, and that I can do perfectly well without.
The question is if somehow given the choice, would you pick that over no life at all?
I just can't help but dismiss out of hand these sorts of melodramatic comments that aim for maximum angst while stating nothing of value.
This kind of edgy comment has no place in real discussion, because of you were serious about it, you wouldn't be able to post it because you'd be dead.
Your comment demeans and trivializes suicidal ideation.
So why would anyone listen to you about how to live it, especially ethically? No, really I am asking. I don't want someone in my government heading up an agency that they don't think should exist, or someone at my job who doesn't want to work there, or date someone who doesn't want to be with me.
If you don't want to exist that is your baggage but for those of us who do why would we trust you to tell us how to exist?
Ethics is for us humans to figure out how to have a good life with other people also having one. It isn't for serving some abstract concept. When you start the Peter Singer games you turn it from a practical art to worship of some secular idol.
If ethics as a concept has the job of focusing solely on humans having a good life then it’s a failure.
Citation needed.
It makes sense to eat food that would otherwise be thrown away.
It does not make sense to say killing an animal is justified because they were happy or it was done humanely.
Doesn't sound like he has values to me. Sounds like he has exceptions. It's a good thing people with 'true values' don't have to prove them to you, lol.
Doesn't sound like he has values to me. Sounds like he has exceptions.
I mean, regardless how you feel about them, those are values. Values in this case as made up of inclusions and exclusions, to say that his values are "exceptions" because they're different than your inclusions and exclusions is condescending and frankly wrong.
The 1% and the corporations are more at fault for climate change than individuals. I'm not going to stop eating beef while rich assholes fly around in their private jets fucking up the world just so I have to pay for their greed.
Corporations respond to consumer demand. Don’t buy beef and there won’t be massive deforestation and insane methane emissions. Every dollar you spend on beef is supporting the 1% and the corporations you claim to hate.
I wasn't even alive in the 1970's when Exxon knew about climate change and lied about it to the entire world. Those rich fucks have been exploiting the climate for their personal gain for many decades before either of us were likely even born. I won't be giving up the few small liberties I have so that the rich can continue doing whatever they want.
And good luck getting every single consumer to agree with you. I suspect you're going to be waiting a long time for your plan to work.
Instead, we should be punishing the individuals responsible for 40% of the climate change problem. Not punishing the rest of the world who did not profit from exploiting the climate problem.
As horrible as those people are, it's not like they're just belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for fun. They're fulfilling demand. That 40% wouldn't disappear just by spreading ownership of the factories to more people. That's not to say that individual action is the only thing that works. Regulations need to be put in place to curb emissions, incentives should reward producers for investing & transitioning to more sustainable practices, and yes, monopolies need to get split up.
But the fact remains that some products are just bad for the environment. As as long as people continue buying those products they'll keep being produced. And when animal agriculture accounts for about as many emissions as the entire transportation industry, this seems like one of the easier steps to make.
The "my actions won't end this problem so I don't need to do anything" mentality never comes up in any other field (politeness, crimes, social change, voting). Yeah, choosing to never hold open doors for others wouldn't noticeably affect the global rate, but I doubt you'd use that logic to justify being rude.
To say Exxon was just, "fulfilling demands" makes them seem like good people. They KNEW they were causing climate change 50 years ago. They suppressed the information. Many Americans are dependent on their oil. It's all part of the design of our roads, infrastructure, jobs, etc. These corporations only care about their revenue streams, not the streams of water and how clean they are. Hoping the majority of consumers band together to do the right thing simply will not work. The corporations and the executives need to be held accountable or we will continue to flounder on climate change.
Unfortunately it goes back further than that. We knew anthropogenic climate change was a thing in the late 1800s, and the oil companies started doing the research in the early 1900s. They knew by 1910 that they were flirting with disaster. Which just allows everyone to say, "nope, not changing anything personally, because those decisions were made before I was born."
I agree that it's unfair that we have to modify our consumption when it makes so little impact. Hopefully meat in vats is actually better for the environment, but I'm not counting on it for the first generation. It is finally being served in a couple restaurants so that's a first step
It has nothing to do with fairness. Modifying consumption at an individual level doesn't help and isn't even a step to solving the problem. It's literally propaganda to shift blame and make sure nothing is ever done to address the issue.
If you're relying on individuals you may as well just give up. There needs to be systemic change forced by legislation.
Modifying consumption at the individual level unintentionally creates boycotts that the local consumer isn't even aware they are involved in. This compounds when the local consumer happens to be an upper manager, because they will carry their biases against corporations, such as Nestlé, into the corporate world, and continue their own boycott of services that are undesirable.
Again, totally unfair to the individual since we carry so little responsibility, but we also carry the ability to crush corporations that refuse to follow the people's will. Look a bit deeper into why Enron, or Sears-Roebuck collapsed. You'll find that your real power is burying corporations that have no value.
Modifying individual consumption is literally the only viable solution. It just cannot be voluntary.
To say they're filling demand is a morally neutral, and objectively correct, standpoint.
Many Americans are dependent upon their oil
This is the actual problem to solve, and why you should support carbon tax-and-dividend.
I'm not defending fossil-fueled energy production. When the product is energy it's inexcusable to produce it in such a grossly irresponsible manner.
But if "coal energy" specifically was the product, and consumers overwhelmingly directly choose it rather than available renewable energy, then yeah I'd cut companies a bit more slack. When the harm isn't in method but the product, and people are choosing that product instead of alternatives, then much of the blame rests on them.
Many Americans are dependent on their oil. It’s all part of the design of our roads, infrastructure, jobs, etc.
No, it's all because America 'needs' to be competitive with the world on a military level. This means that whatever will make us progress the fastest is the route we're going to take.
Operating without oil will severely hinder US military progression, which is why we don't do it. It's the same reason why no nation does it that has a stake in world affairs. Slowing down to save the environment gives your enemies an advantage.
Thats because we all have been raised to be polite and hold doors open. We have also been raised to consume anything and everything to satisfy our greed because it is our right as rulers of earth. It is the standard and noone criticizes you for it, so why not keep that privilege? It is apparently very hard and takes a long time to get rid of this mentality in the whole population, especially since the most influential ones fight for keeping it.
Do you really only do good things when you've been conditioned to do so? You don't ever try to grow past what society tells you? I'm not asking you to solve everything. I'm asking you not to be a part of the problem. Defending your behavior by pointing to that of others has not been a historically sound position.
The reason why we will fail when it comes to the climate: we can’t even agree on who to blame and who to punish and how to change the situation to solve the problem.
We are f’d!
There is no need to agree on who to blame. We all need to fight together and do our best.
Trying to shift blame away from ourselves is the actual problem thats keeping us from making change.
I won’t be giving up the few small liberties
One thing that has always bothered me about veganism is how freaken privileged it is. Cooking without animal products is more work and just has less reward. It is a privilege of the rich or at the least a full-time homemaker. I am upper middleclass now but I have been poor. Animal products are a hit of happiness with low effort.
Noone is saying we shouldnt punish corporations. We should, but how does that give us a free pass to keep exploiting the environment? How can you demand change from others when you decline changing yourself from the start?
The goal is to reduce emissions. If you want to reduce emissions significantly, you must massively reduce or eliminate meat consumption.
And so any solution, no matter where it comes from, will result in meat being either banned or becoming absurdly expensive. So why not get ahead of that and learn to live without meat?
I don't have a car, but yes I'm a little bit at fault. I never said I wasn't.
But only an idiot would think I'm just as bad as people who made millions of dollars making the climate problem substantially worse. I didn't get rich by fucking our planet. I'm just trying to get by unlike the executives exacerbating climate change so they can make a couple million more.
Yeah, I definitely don't think you're just as bad.
The powers that be have a vested interest in making sure we're depending on making them richer.
Don’t buy beef and there won’t be massive deforestation and insane methane emissions
have you tried that?
Because Chinese demand for meat offsets our progress. So we should give up trying? Great logic
So we should give up trying?
if you tactic is ineffective, you should try a different tactic.
Because Chinese demand for meat offsets our progress.
whatever the excuse, it's not working.
“China isn’t doing their part, why should we?” Ok, GOP talking head.
That’s the excuse every conservative in the USA gives for ignoring the climate crisis. The fact is that our efforts ARE working in Western countries. That doesn’t mean we should stop.
I mean, we can both eat less meat and also demand change from the rich, they aren't mutually exclusive. "Because they do it too" isn't a great excuse
I never said they were mutually exclusive. The problem is that the majority of people have to make sacrifices because some rich assholes caused the lion's share of the problem. The funny thing about being a rich asshole is that they'll get away scot-free while the rest of us have to pay for their greed.
Hey not all of us! I plan to get a job working in whatever underground cyberpunk hell scape is our future. It's you surface people who are screwed.
Going vegan isn't "making sacrifices", it's the right thing to do. Rich people aren't the ones consuming all of the meat, it's everyday schlubs like you.
Here's the problem that schlubs like you don't understand: The rich people who profited from causing most of the problem aren't making any sacrifices and expect everyone else to do it for them.
Sounds like a poor excuse to avoid personal responsibility to me. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Congratulations on successfully doing absolutely nothing, you must feel so proud.
No but making yourself miserable for no reason won't either. Look, I am personally trying. Got meat down to about one meal a week (oh Lord that one meat meal a week is so awesome), only driving when there isnt another option, and not blasting my AC. This doesn't change the fact that there are big big problems that individuals making themselves feel like shit won't solve. All my effort can be undone in a single day by anyone on earth and they don't even have to plan it out, it could just happen.
Lololololol, painting the sales of a product (eg gasoline) as personal usage and then aggregating it as a metric is just about one of the most disingenuous use of statistics I regularly see spouted.
So tired of any personal responsibilities. Fuck those oil producers heating my home polluting the planet!
Wow, this is so sad. So as long as there are people doing worse shit than you thats an excuse to keep going?
'I wont stop raping as long as there are murderers out there'.
rich assholes fly around in their private jets fucking up the world
Funny you mention this because the article specifically calls out people who think air travel is a more meaningful contributor to climate change than their own diet preferences.
Also your entire take is based on the idea that these 1% corporations just like, burn fuel for funsies, instead of selling products to people which are then consumed.
This take, for instance, is pants-on-head stupid:
A household making $980,000 from [investment in] certain fossil fuel industries, for example, would be considered a super-emitter, according to the report.
Might wanna rethink your entire worldview there bud.
America's richest 10% are responsible for 40% of climate change. You're butthurt that I'm using living modestly while rich assholes profit from making the climate problem exponentially worse. I would say don't bootlick for the rich, but I'm not sure you're intelligent enough to change your worldview "bud".
You're sharing the same article I'm quoting from, which is making a stupid argument.
If you want to fight climate change, you must understand that aggregate demand is the driver of climate change. Companies don't get rich by fucking up the planet. Companies get rich by selling people shit. The shit they sell is fucking up the planet. Cut the demand and you lessen the fuckening.
The way forward is by tackling aggregate demand, ideally through carbon taxes and investment/subsidies in green technologies.
I am a literal climate lobbyist, and this is the angle actual people involved in fighting climate change work from.
I'm a climate scientist and a sociologist. If you think that we can get everyone on the same page about giving up their personal liberties and small pleasures (like eating meat) so the rich can continue to exploit the problem further for their own profit, we've already lost.
The only path forward is to jail the corporate executives and rich assholes causing the lion's share of the issue, but instead we get bootlickers arguing for an impossible goal of herding a bunch of cats to stop doing something they love to make up for problems mostly caused by the richest 10%.
If you think that we can get everyone on the same page
I literally say the opposite of this
The only path forward is to jail the corporate executives and rich assholes causing the lion’s share of the issue
In addition to being completely unhinged, this does not address demand at all and someone else will simply start selling those fuels and products/services
You're either lying or terrible at your job.
I can see you're having trouble understanding basic logic. Let me explain it to you this way:
If I started a business throwing used motor oil into the ocean, I could charge people next to nothing to take their oil. I would make huge profits by destroying our planet. Your strategy would be to convince all the poor people in America not to use the cheapest option to dispose of their oil. Many Americans don't have a choice between using an expensive "good for the Earth" option and my business that throws it into ocean for cheap.
You lack an understanding of the people you're trying to coordinate. Many Americans lack the time and the money to correctly choose the most environmentally friendly option. You will never get everyone on the same page. The only path forward is to punish the rich assholes actually causing the lion's share of the problem.
This is an idiotic counter-factual.
The reality is, fossil fuels companies are constantly listed as "top contributors" because they fucking sell fossil fuels.
Until we remove the present need for fossil fuels by disincentivizing them in favor of green technology, then we will continue on this path. Fossil fuels aren't burnt for fun. They are used to power homes, transportation, etc. That's what we need to tackle.
I understand it is attractive to have a "villain" to point at. It makes things much easier for you and absolves you of your role. However, this is both non-productive and, ultimately, objectively incorrect.
You're correct that voluntary abstinence is not enough to be meaningfully impactful, that's why we lobby for government subsidies and, ideally, carbon taxation.
I know you, personally, are a lost cause - you'll fight anything that will "disadvantage" you. I'm writing this because some lurker will see it and that'll be one more vote. One vote at a time is how we win.
Bet you $10 they are going to jack those prices up so fucking high because marketing it as “sustainable” adds value or whatever.
Like they do with coffee or tried to do with clothing. Yeah buddy I am going to spend 110 dollars on your fucking hemp sweater that looks like I am off to go get high off gas in a bag later today. I want to spend my all too few dollars on that.
I bet WWF cant wait to put its label on the packaging.
They want you to think killing tuna is good for the environment
"This product helps protect coastlines and waterways."
How is this legal?
This product contributes to the PROTECTION OF COASTS AND WATERS by:
Use of feed from sustainable production
Refrain from preventive treatment with antibiotics
More space per animal
Non-genetically modified feed
Avoidance of synthetic dyes in feed
How does that say "killing tuna is good for the environment"?
Isn't it kinda obvious it's a comparison to other tuna? Best for the environment would be to kill yourself and not eat anything.
That's quite a wild difference from claiming killing tuna saves the environment.
This is saying they only use farmed tuna from sustainable sources, instead of just fishing them from the wild and reducing native populations, as well as not using drugs, GMOs, or synthetic dyes with those farmed fish.
Thanks for the heads up.
I'm still frustrated at the whole cage-free eggs/free range chickens and how it's super confusing.
The problem is that free range and grass fed methods take up more space and and produce more greenhouses gasses, even if they are more ethical.
Is it more expensive? They raise a ton of sheep around here, maybe I'll start buying local lamb. Mmmmm....
Hate to break it to you but the climate impact stats on lamb are just as bad as beef. I guess it’s good that it’s local but don’t think that just because it’s not beef it’s a-okay.
I like beef, I like the climate unfriendly kind, I'm gonna go nuts for this new climate friendly kind I bet
