Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KeepAwaySynonym t1_j4ejnpj wrote

While I don't agree with people who have a chip on their shoulder and feeingl morally superior(while simultaneously admiring them for having principles they stand by and a passion they believe in)... you know that the level of deaths brought on by combines is smaller than the harm of caused by the food industry.

From needless animal suffering, to the environmental impacts, such as the Amazon rainforest being burned down for cattle ranching, there are tons of problems that come from using animals as a food source, especially in a modern society

8

sottedlayabout t1_j4eytpw wrote

You do know they are burning the Amazon to create arable farmland to feed their families right?

How about the fact that significantly more arable farmland will be required if we want everyone to make the “morally correct” choice to switch to a plant based diet than if we continue using animals as a food source.

0

Allegedly_Smart t1_j4funil wrote

>You do know they are burning the Amazon to create arable farmland to feed their families right?

Beef is an expensive commodity, and grass-fed beef is especially so. In our globalized food production network, beef raised in one place can be sold anywhere around world. The best places to raise cattle for grass-fed beef have high rainfall for faster grass growth; you can have more cattle on the same amount of land and/or can supplement their diets with less grain.

The Amazon is not being burned to make room for family farms so the people can grow food to eat; it's being burned to make way for cattle ranches, because it's a highly profitable use for that land by the capitalist class of Brazil. Brazil is the largest exporter of beef in the world.

5

sottedlayabout t1_j4ik1u4 wrote

So what’s your solution? Given that beef is one of Brazil’s biggest exports and the money that is generated by this production and exportation improves the lives of countless Brazilian people. Should they simply suffer and die in poverty? Morality is simple when you don’t have to actually suffer the consequences firsthand. When you can simply sit on your high horse and say “meat bad” when you drive to your local market and enjoy the privilege of being able to purchase any number of globally sourced out of season fruits and vegetables with no thought to the suffering involved in their production.

1

tornpentacle t1_j4fohn6 wrote

That...is just not remotely true

(The second part)

That's a ridiculous argument to make in the 21st century

2

sottedlayabout t1_j4ii005 wrote

And yet you seem wholly unable to actually rebut the argument.

1