Coffee vs. climate change: The news is not good

[Jaxxoon R]

Pretty sure modern technology and humanity in general is the root of climate change. You can have pollution and no regard for the environment without capitalism.

[Mr. Freeze]

It's easy, we nuke the coal miners and their mines

[Nine Inch Heels]

9 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

My argument is that because of the power of capitalism, and because capitalism is the root cause of climate change, it needs to be tackled directly.  Also that small individual measures such as eating less meat and other feel-good green methods are nice, but aren't going to make much of a difference in the long run, and thus the focus should be on fighting the fossil fuel industry.

This is where I feel like either it's me who underestimates something or maybe it's you for that matter. On one hand you say that, if it's possible to get people do something about the situation, it might be best to go for the bigger game in town, on the other hand you say that billions of people aren't going to matter all that much when it comes to changing some (supposedly) minor things in terms of what they put in their shoppingcarts. And I'm not even against the idea of doing away with capitalism and everything that came along with it.

 

What I'm saying is that there's no time not try and win some time, because that's what's running out on us all, and if recent articles and studies (though those are usually to be taken with a grain of salt) are anywhere near indicative of the actual situation, then time is running out on us faster than most people could think of. That's why earlier I said that some of which you said has a hint of accelerationism to it, which in this case is nothing that we can afford at all. So if you want to put your money on education, which we all know takes time before it shows results, I find it very hard to understand that you're against the idea of winning time in the first place.

 

9 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

What got Trump elected is a complex issue, but not one you should solely blame on the American public.

Trump is one prime example, however there are many other cases in which people who shouldn't even be considered for higher offices are being lifted into these positions by way of benefitial circumstances, and that's happening just about everywhere else as well. That, coupled with the 90% of people not doing anything about the situation, which admittedly might have been a stretch, though it's still not too far from being right when you look at how apathic most people are about politics these days (and vote with their guts instead of their brains), is where I feel like there's little reason to hope that you're gonna get rid of capitalism once and for all in the near future.

 

The reason I asked you about "one less smartphone" or "overthrowing capitalism" was because I get the sense you think that motivating people to do something individually, which they can understand more or less intuite, and something that is a lot more complex would require the require the same amount of motivation, if that makes any sense. What you're going for requires a lot more than just a "simple nudge", yet you want to get people up to "full speed" from out of nowhere, instead of getting them to move just a little bit to begin with. That's where I put my money on "first things first", which is why I say the smaller scale matters a lot more than I feel like you are willing to give it credit for.

 

9 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

Unfortunately, we already have a rotten fruit ruining the basket: capitalism.  If we somehow impossibly managed to solve climate change by changing our eating habits, that won't get rid of capitalism.  What happens when you leave the rotten fruit in the basket, then fill the basket up again with fresh fruit?  You're going to spoil another basket.

Okay, the thing about eating habits is not just the use of fossil fuels that comes with it, it's a surface area issue which leads to massive deforestation (including the rain-forest). That being said, even if you got rid of capitalism, you'd still have to change your eating habits in order for meat to be economically sustainable, which it currently isn't and never will become, simply by virtue of requiring too much of earth's surface to harvest crops for feedlots, and don't get me started on just how much water goes into one kilogram of meat (taken the production of the feed into account) be it chicken or beef or whatever, because if you knew that it'd make your head spin. So if your train of thought was that by getting rid of capitalism you could have meat willy-nilly because capitalism was gone, then you've been on the wrong track. Sorry, but that's how it is in reality, because regardless of who's president or where the bulk of the money is, the same animal needs the same amount of feed and water to grow 1kg of meat for consumption. To make a final point about this: The world's population is estimated to more than double within the next 3-4 decades alone (I have my doubts about this, but let's say there won't be less people in the future than there are now). If you want your regular slice of meat, then you'll have to restort to intensive animal farming at some point no matter what, because it would be the only thing that "delivers" meat at an affordable cost (read: what you pay in the supermarket), and with a large enough output. All that being said, the notion that capitalism alone is the reason for the unsustainablility of "meat for the masses" is plain wrong still. All it takes for me is entering "mass meat production facts" into my search engine of choice to see that even the lowballing studies show alarming numbers, so in case you want a source, there you have a couple dozen and then some.

[Remilia Scarlet]

5 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

That, coupled with the 90% of people not doing anything about the situation, which admittedly might have been a stretch, though it's still not too far from being right when you look at how apathic most people are about politics these days (and vote with their guts instead of their brains), is where I feel like there's little reason to hope that you're gonna get rid of capitalism once and for all in the near future.

I'm still waiting on an actual source for this.  To state such a hard figure such as "90%", only to later back down from that and give a vaguer response, hints that there isn't a reliable one.  Otherwise I'm taking this with a massive spoon of salt, because it's at best conjecture.

 

5 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

What you're going for requires a lot more than just a "simple nudge", yet you want to get people up to "full speed" from out of nowhere, instead of getting them to move just a little bit to begin with. That's where I put my money on "first things first", which is why I say the smaller scale matters a lot more than I feel like you are willing to give it credit for.

 I want the individual to do what they can, which is why I still support small individual and small-group changes and action.  But this cannot be the only course of action.

 

5 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

So if your train of thought was that by getting rid of capitalism you could have meat willy-nilly because capitalism was gone, then you've been on the wrong track. Sorry, but that's how it is in reality, because regardless of who's president or where the bulk of the money is, the same animal needs the same amount of feed and water to grow 1kg of meat for consumption. To make a final point about this: The world's population is estimated to more than double within the next 3-4 decades alone (I have my doubts about this, but let's say there won't be less people in the future than there are now).

I have not at all said, nor meant to imply, that getting rid of capitalism could let me have meat as much as I want.  Nor that the overthrow of capitalism would somehow intrinsically change the requirements to grow an animal in preparation for consumption.  If this is what you think, that's an error on your part.

 

Another thing to consider is that science is limited by capitalism in that companies will lobby to protect there interest, even if that goes against what's best for society.  Without capitalism, this limitation will go away, leading the way to easier and faster scientific discoveries.  And you can be sure, if agriculture isn't producing things efficiently like it is now, science can find ways to improve it.  In fact, here's some mitigation ideas that are already proposed, complete with some links (funny how I'm the only one linking things to back up my claims) for them:

• Better feed
• Manipulation of the rumen
• Dietary supplementation
• Better herd management
• Better animal breeding
• Changing the carbon sinks in the soil
• Reduction of fossil fuel consumption

^{http://www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/pdf_files/Hamilton_Field_Day2010.pdf}

^{http://www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/pdf_files/GHGGrainsEmissions.pdf}

 

^{Articles related to how capitalism is having an effect on science:}

^{http://www.marxist.com/capitalism-versus-science.htm}

^{https://www.socialistalternative.org/2014/11/08/capitalism-stifles-science/}

 

The thing is, going after agriculture is going after roughly 10% of the total green house gas emissions.  I've already linked sources showing this to be the case.  What I'm proposing is going after something that accounts for about 70-80% of the emissions.  Furthermore, attacking the capitalism driving the fossil fuels also ends up tackling agriculture through both that sector's use of fossil fuels, and the aforementioned impact on scientific endeavors to better improve agriculture.  Tell me where the logic is to place so much emphasis on going after the 10% while ignoring the rest.

 

If I have some sort of accident involving a power tool and put a nice gash in my arm, but also cut off my hand, I'm going to be a lot more concerned about my missing hand.  Yes, you can be absolutely sure I'll be worried about the gash, but I'm still going to be a lot more worried about the missing hand.  What you're implying would be tantamount to focusing on the gash and worrying about the hand later because blood and time are running out.

 

5 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

All it takes for me is entering "mass meat production facts" into my search engine of choice to see that even the lowballing studies show alarming numbers, so in case you want a source, there you have a couple dozen and then some.

Then link them.  I'm still waiting on sources from you.  Without them, I can't help but approach what you're saying as conjecture.

 

I'm also still waiting on a source stating that meat isn't a source for vitamin B12...

[Nine Inch Heels]

2 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

I'm also still waiting on a source stating that meat isn't a source for vitamin B12...

It's funny how you conveniently step back from saying that there might have been a misunderstanding a few hours or so ago, only to later take a swing at this. Just saying.

 

Here's a link for you that actually backs up my claims perfectly fine, as well as it backs up what it says with additional sources, if you are so inclined, or in case you might think that this all highballing it: https://www.peta.org/features/meat-climate-change/

 

Even wikipedia's lowballing numbers are alarming enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

 

2 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

I'm still waiting on an actual source for this.  To state such a hard figure such as "90%", only to later back down from that and give a vaguer response, hints that there isn't a reliable one.  Otherwise I'm taking this with a massive spoon of salt, because it's at best conjecture.

These charts here show that non-voters are on the rise: https://www.nature.com/articles/n-12342912

 

To that you can add the many traditional active voters, who vote for "X" because they always did that or whatever. I'm sure you've met several ones IRL already.

 

What that graph also shows is right wing votes having a constant upswing as well, and I don't need to tell you that the far right wing is where all actual politics end.

 

What do you think is it that drives financially weaker countries down the shitter so hard? Political interest? Let alone awareness? I'm sure you're gonna say capitalism here for some reason, but even if that were true, political apathy is alarmingly high anyway, and it's on the rise.

 

Of course most people vote with their guts. Look at the USA, if it were any different, there would not have been a shadow of a doubt that Bernie would have won just based on his will to set a proper public funding for electual campaigns (thus lessening the influence of lobbies in the USA) in and of itself. Especially campaigns in bigger countries adress the people's emotions (read: guts) above everything else. Because it works. And that you actually want sources for something that is so obvious irritates me quite a bit. The majority of people aren't the ones you talk with during your socialist meetings, or during protests, the majority of people is doing jack as long they're fine and comfy, if it were any different, we wouldn't have this conversation to begin with.

 

2 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

I want the individual to do what they can, which is why I still support small individual and small-group changes and action.  But this cannot be the only course of action.

I never said it should be the only course of action, but it is one that is relatively easy (and much more likely) to get going and it yields fast results, even if those are small.

 

2 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

Better feed etc

What better feed does is it reduces the amount of water an animal needs to have along with it relative to the amount of nutrition it provides. In an ideal case, a broiler chicken needs roughly 2 litres of water if given 1 kg of highly nutritious yet easy to digest feed. What better feed doesn't do is to reduce the amount of water required to grow the crops of which said feed is made. Let alone reduce the amount of agricultural surface to grow said crops.

 

This page contains a chart that you may find enlightening: http://grist.org/food/can-meat-actually-be-eco-friendly/

Objectively speaking, eating meat is a gigantic waste of resources, and even if it were possible to trick nature into much better results than this chart shows, it doesn't change the fact in and of itself.

 

Since there's going to be even more people in the future, and you can't magically create meat from out of nowhere, because physics, any and all scientific effort that aims to reduce the economical burden of meat production is wasted time that would be better spent elsewhere, because just like you argued that individual efforts in regards to consum habits don't solve the big problem, I'm going to argue that any effort made in this field of science is also merely delaying the inevitable, and that still holds true even if you take CO² out of the equation entirely.

 

There is no objective argument by which you could defend meat consumption (and production) as it happens these days against the simple reality that it is wasteful and economically devastating in any scenario in which meat is to be available for common folk on a regular basis (read: several times per week or month depending on how large the amount of meat per meal is in individual cases). Meat isn't required, let alone good from a human health POV either: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/fcrn_what_is_a_sustainable_healthy_diet_final.pdf

 

Here's another one, because you like links:

 

"In the United States, more than 9 billion livestock are maintained to supply the animal protein consumed each year. This livestock population on average outweighs the US human population by about 5 times. Some livestock, such as poultry and hogs, consume only grains, whereas dairy cattle, beef cattle, and lambs consume both grains and forage. At present, the US livestock population consumes more than 7 times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population." http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

 

In my extremely unpopular opinion it's high time some people woke up from their dream of sustainable meat for the masses.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Thank you for finally providing some evidence to back up your claims.  I've been waiting for this since I first entered this thread.

 

I'm not going to look at what PETA, of all organizations, directly claims.  I'm dying laughing because I correctly predicted that would be the very, very first link you posted.  Regardless, that has nothing to do with the information behind their sources and is simply personal amusement.

 

• Their First two sources were not available because the website was down.
• Livinggreenmag came up with a 404 error
• UNEP came up with a 404
• Many of the remaining sources either fail to mention that they fall within the overall ~10% of the greenhouse gases that agriculture emits, or PETA quietly omits this fact, likely to push their agenda.  Absolutely nothing you linked contradicts the fact that agriculture amounts to ~10% of the greenhouse gas emission.  To put it another way, they fail as critiques (mostly valid, btw) of that particular economic sector, but that's not the only sector causing climate change.

Some more specific points:

• The VegSource site seems to base part of its health information that sits within the realm of the already fallible lipid hypothesis.  The VegSource also lists no sources, but tells me to read a book that I'd have to buy.  I also question the reliability of information because that reeks of advertisement for a product.
• The EPA site is good.  Water pollution is definitely a serious issue, but still something that can be countered by the overthrow of capitalism.  Without a profit motive, and with social control of the means of production, industries are going to be less likely to pollute.  After all, why would workers stab themselves in the back and pollute their own rivers?  Capitalists have a reason, and that reason is that it's more profitable.
  
  I linked the EPA as well, I believe...
• The NBC article is also good.  But, I would question why the company whose plants are leaking the polutants aren't implementing greater measures to counteract this.  My guess: it still leads back to money and profit.  Also, this was in 2004, so I'd like to see a followup, if only out of curiosity of what happened.
• The paper titled "Predictors of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon" is very interesting, but doesn't seem to have much to do with agriculture.  It even states in the conclusion, "Our results highlight the critical role of highways, roads and population growth in determining local forest destruction."  Or if you want, in the abstract, "These trends suggest that deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is being largely determined by three proximate factors: human population density, highways and dry-season severity, all of which increase deforestation."  Deforestation is ABSOLUTELY an issue, but this paper itself doesn't address agriculture.
• The paper from The World Bank is laughable in the eyes of a Marxist given that it's deeply embedded in the capitalist system, and as an organization for the capitalist ruling class, it's going to enforce the false idea that capitalism is good.

I could go on, but this is getting long, and I have stuff to do.

 

40 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

These charts here show that non-voters are on the rise:

What's interesting is that article also states this:

 

"But an increase in abstention doesn’t necessarily mean people are less interested in politics. `Traditional forms of participation are in decline, but new ways such as on social media are picking up and may be resulting in a replacement effect,' he says."

 

I take this to mean that voter non-participation does not equal people doing jack about something because they couldn't be bothered.  It just means that the means for instituting change are changing.

 

40 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

What do you think is it that drives financially weaker countries down the shitter so hard?

When you get to the root/source of the issues, capitalism and imperialism!  And I absolutely abhor just how horrible financially weaker countries are being treated.

 

40 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

And that you actually want sources for something that is so obvious irritates me quite a bit.

It shouldn't, because assertions need evidence to back them up, especially when you're so adamant about them.  This... this is hilarious to hear...

 

40 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

The majority of people aren't the ones you talk with during your socialist meetings, or during protests, the majority of people is doing jack as long they're fine and comfy, if it were any different, we wouldn't have this conversation to begin with.

I'm pretty sure we also wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't present a zealot-like attitude towards veganism much earlier in the thread.  it's one thing to advocate, but it's another thing to take the route you did.

 

40 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I never said it should be the only course of action, but it is one that is relatively easy (and much more likely) to get going and it yields fast results, even if those are small.

If they're small, they aren't going to help much, right?  I'm all for the small results, but without larger results, that's not going to fight something that's so imminent and dire.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Look, I have nothing against people eating less meat.  I also have nothing against people doing so in order to combat climate change.  What I'm taking issue with is the emphasis you're placing on that when it's tackling only ~10% of the problem.  That's just asinine.

 

I'm feeling we're reaching a point where neither of us are going to make a convincing argument towards the other anytime soon.  We can debate this again in the future if you wish, but this has reached the point of dragging on and on.  I can't spend all my days finding the evidence to back up my claims, and I'm sure you're busy as well and so don't want to spend much more time.  So... for now, agree to disagree?  Go our paths, with you advocating (hopefully with less zealotry) for eating less meat, while I advocate (hopefully with less zealotry) for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of communism?

[axdoomer]

41 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Here's a link for you that actually backs up my claims perfectly fine, as well as it backs up what it says with additional sources, if you are so inclined, or in case you might think that this all highballing it: https://www.peta.org/features/meat-climate-change/

PETA is a joke. They are known for making alarming statements and publishing 30 years old videos of animals being exploited in the third world. This is not reality today. They also cherry pick their sources. You can't trust people who get paid by an organization who has a pro-vegan agenda to do research without it being biased. That's exactly like paying an oil company to do research to see if oil is dangerous for the environment.

[Nine Inch Heels]

15 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

I'm not going to look at what PETA, of all organizations, directly claims

Oh, come on. Don't expect me not to go for the low-hanging fruit after taking yet another low blow that was entirely unnecessary. I was under the impression we'd have gotten past that a day ago:

18 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

I'm also still waiting on a source stating that meat isn't a source for vitamin B12...

Besides, I was kind enough to provide additional sources which provide different numbers. Not to mention that I'm first of all not too fond of their vegan agenda either (they tell people to go vegan, but don't make any significant effort to explain how to have a healthy diet), plus I'm nowhere near saying that people should give up on meat entirely either.

 

15 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

The EPA site is good.  Water pollution is definitely a serious issue, but still something that can be countered by the overthrow of capitalism.  Without a profit motive, and with social control of the means of production, industries are going to be less likely to pollute.  After all, why would workers stab themselves in the back and pollute their own rivers?  Capitalists have a reason, and that reason is that it's more profitable.

Right. The end result however is that any sort of mass-production of any product you can think of is likely going to become significantly less effective short term, or in some cases even impossible, be it short term or long term. So the "cutting back" on certain things is going to happen one way or another. My point is why not cut back now to do less damage than is necessary?

 

15 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

What's interesting is that article also states this:

 

"But an increase in abstention doesn’t necessarily mean people are less interested in politics. `Traditional forms of participation are in decline, but new ways such as on social media are picking up and may be resulting in a replacement effect,' he says."

 

I take this to mean that voter non-participation does not equal people doing jack about something because they couldn't be bothered.  It just means that the means for instituting change are changing.

Not to mention how certain institutions would love to have better control over the internet. The problem I have is that in spite of social media being a thing since way over a decade, voters have been in decline over the very same time span, as well as right wing voters have had an upswing during said decade as well. The way I see it, people these days show an increasing lack of interest of participation in their respective political systems.

 

There certainly is an interest among some younger people in particular to engage themselves in social activities, since they know that there's something wrong about how things are. I mean, in some sense I work in the social sector myself because it's deeply connected to what I do for a living, so it's not like I'm dismissing the fact that some (read: a select few) people do get active. At the same time, any social sector can only do so much without proper funding, and here's where participating in the political system, however screwed up it may be is important, which many folks unfortunately fail to realize (Not saying you do, but in general). What I mean by participating isn't just voting alone, it involves thinking critically about what the respective parties have on offer, as opposed to placing a vote based on feel, the latter of which happening way too often.

 

15 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

When you get to the root/source of the issues, capitalism and imperialism!  And I absolutely abhor just how horrible financially weaker countries are being treated.

That coupled with the fact that many a politician is being paid by lobbies, or even worse, is an actual lobby member. Sure there's capitalists behind it, I'm not going to deny the obvious, at the same time it's especially the non-voters who contribute a lot more to keeping their current systems alive as they think they do (As much as consumers who actually have a choice contribute more to capitalism than they think they do). And that remains a problem in spite of any activity taking place on social media platforms or IRL.

 

To the best of my knowledge, if you don't vote in most if not all countries with a democratic system, your potential vote isn't being taken into account entirely, as if you didn't even exist, because the end results are always comprised of only those who have voted. So whatever political interest there may be, and I'm not saying there isn't any at all, participating within the confines of what's possible is what's happening to a lesser and lesser degree (All the supposedly small things I keep advocating as being worth doing). And I'm not even blaming people for being sick and tired, or simply indifferent when it comes to participating. But it has to happen as well, regardless of how annoying or frustrating it is.

 

15 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

It shouldn't, because assertions need evidence to back them up, especially when you're so adamant about them.  This... this is hilarious to hear...

Okay fine. At the same you have seen how extremely unqualified people can get into higher office for yourself. So I'm not sure how hilarious this actually is, all things considered.

 

15 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

If they're small, they aren't going to help much, right?  I'm all for the small results, but without larger results, that's not going to fight something that's so imminent and dire.

Let me reiterate: I am not against the idea of aiming for something big (in the long run, because big changes take time), I am against the idea of ignoring all the many small things (which can be done right away to win some time and mitigate damage), because maybe in the near future something big might change for the better. The way you are arguing about this makes it look to me as if one thing ruled out the other, while it dismisses the possibilty that going for the big thing benefits from doing all the small things beforehand. People are more likely to follow a certain path to the end when they are already committed to some extent (Source: see how and why preorder boni on steam work so well in spite of their bad image).

 

Of course we can also just agree to disagree, though I'm not even sure by how much we actually disagree, because I very much get the impression that our approach is as different as our individual situations are.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Nine Inch Heels

[Cruduxy Pegg]

I wouldn't use PETA as a source for anything with their shady history of actions, Like kidnapping pets and executing them, oh wait I mean mercifully putting them down to rest instead of this hellish world they suffered for so long.

 

Seeing as countless attempts to prevent climate change didn't work - Regardless of reason\or even lack of reason used to stop it - I can't help but think my grandpa was right: Too many people refuse to accept change, the smallest of inconvenience til cataclysm. 

 

Also what the hell did some of you call coffee? A stable drink is way more important than red meat, Save coffee!

[MajorRawne]

Referring to the original topic, it's all very well for the United States to blame climate change on China, while simultaneously bombarding the free world with facts and stats about pollution in the USA, and in the meantime the United Kingdom's citizens are paying taxes because of what these other countries are doing to the world. It's also all very well for the USA to build fleets of 2-ton, 20-foot-long cars that do 15mpg. But you mess with their coffee and suddenly it's world war 3.

 

"How are we going to motivate the citizens to save our planet? Show them dead birds with stomachs full of plastic? Show photos of rivers in China? Talk about how children are dying?"

"No no no, let's take away their coffee."

"BINGO! Have a promotion."

[Benjogami]

In order to open an alternative to the endless battle of agendas, requests for sources, and scrutiny of sources, I'll give a simple argument from thermodynamics.

 

There are only 3 true sources of energy on this planet (the Nine Inch Heels type of source, lol): the sun, geothermal, and nuclear. The most efficient and least side-effect ridden way to harvest energy is to get as close to the source as possible. Consider where the energy is actually coming from when we burn fossil fuels: the prehistoric sun fed prehistoric plants, some of the plants were eaten and turned into dinosaurs, some dinosaurs turned into other dinosaurs when they were eaten, everything died and got buried, and millions of years later we have fossil fuels, which we burn to release energy (and a bunch of other junk). The source of all that energy was the prehistoric sun, transformed and used in perhaps the most absurdly convoluted way possible.

 

So the best way to harvest energy is solar, clearly. Wind and water turbines are less direct but still pretty good. 

 

The same argument can be made for food. We can't eat sunlight, but plants can, so eating plants is the most efficient way for us to get energy, rather than growing plants to feed the animals to eat the animals.

 

If you really want to redirect the blame for all this to capitalism, well okay. I'm sure some communist utopia would do everything better. Keyword being utopia. If you think the most efficient way that you can make positive change is to promote communism, go for it. But I don't see why you have to eat meat while doing it. ;)

[Remilia Scarlet]

You're changing my argument, just as NIH did.  I'm not arguing that I need or don't need to keep eating meat.  What I'm arguing is that placing such emphasis (not exclusive emphasis, but majority emphasis) on the agriculture economic sector is the wrong way to go.  I'm not saying we should ignore agriculture, but placing too much emphasis on it takes away from the real source of the problem.  Since fossil fuels are the vast majority of the source of greenhouse gas emissions, we should be placing the majority of our emphasis on that economic sector.  Stop creating a straw man.

 

As a Marxist, I naturally approached this from a Marxist perspective, hence my emphasis on the role that capitalism has in perpetuating the use of fossil fuels, and in the poor economic practices in general that end up impacting the environment.  Attacking my Marxist- based argument with "eat less meat" misses the point that I'm arguing about which economic sector we're going after, not if eating less meat is a good idea or not.  You're performing the very definition of a straw man argument.

 

Tell me why we should not emphasize the fossil fuel industry, and why going after the agriculture industry, despite it emitting only ~10% of the emissions, is the solution.  Not that I'm someone who wants to keep eating meat.

 

Also, quick side note, we humans consume sunlight to synthesize vitamin D, as do most vertebrate animals.

 

Side side note, communist "utopia"... lol, no one mentioned a communist "utopia".  We communist know better than to believe a utopia is possible.  To think of us a utopists is just liberal bullshit.

[leodoom85]

5 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

Also, quick side note, we humans consume sunlight to synthesize vitamin D

Indeed, we can "convert" the sunlight and process it into vitamin D but be careful, that very same process can burn you for prolonged times ;)

[Benjogami]

Oh, mmhmm, strawman. Mmhmm, liberal bullshit. Got it.

 

I never said where the majority emphasis should be. Here are some more fallacy callouts for you: on the issue of climate change, communism is a red herring, championed by you simply because you're interested in it. Sure, communism could theoretically be a good tool to help alleviate climate change, but your use of it in this context is about as elegant as the people who say "the private sector will invent technology to make the problem go away." Your whole line also has the not-so-subtle flavor of false dilemma throughout. You keep saying "yeah sure agriculture could be better" but you keep belaboring your point about communism, so I think this idea of majority emphasis is a false dilemma and was introduced by you in order to elbow your own interests into the discussion, and make communism out to be the real winner.

 

I won't deny that Nine Inch Heels also elbowed her interests into the discussion when she originally brought up meat eating. But she also demonstrated her misunderstanding of the original coffee topic in her post that brought it up, so I can't say for sure what her motivation was. :P

 

I say "utopia" because that's what it will take to reverse climate change. Doesn't matter what kind of utopia it is. A garbage implementation and administration of communism isn't going to be any better than garbage capitalism, and it isn't going to matter unless a huge majority of the world is on board. I get the sense that you've had a lot of people playing the utopia card against you in your defenses of communism, and I can imagine that it would be tiresome, but "liberal bullshit" is a pretty comical response to it even still.

 

Also, vitamin D isn't energy and has nothing to do with my point. 

 

[Remilia Scarlet]

1 hour ago, Benjogami said:

I never said where the majority emphasis should be.

Exactly, but that's the argument I'm putting forth.  Stop beating around the bush.

 

1 hour ago, Benjogami said:

You keep saying "yeah sure agriculture could be better" but you keep belaboring your point about communism, so I think this idea of majority emphasis is a false dilemma and was introduced by you in order to elbow your own interests into the discussion, and make communism out to be the real winner.

Fine, I'll stop talking about communism to amuse you.  Assume I was instead taking a liberal regulatory viewpoint of the issue at hand.  I still want to know why we should place so much focus on just ~10% of the problem instead of focusing on the major contributor.

 

Also, saying I'm taking this approach because I'm interested in it is just another example of you reforming your argument to avoid answering my question.  Do not attempt to turn me into the victim here to avoid the question.  Besides, you should know that I am far from the only one using a Marxist, or a more general socialist, approach to this problem.

 

Spoiler

http://www.actvism.org/en/politics/richard-wolff-capitalism/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl7AfYNAm6s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iry6X8AAHY
https://earthnetwork.news/2016/12/19/democracy-at-work-econominute-standing-rock-richard-d-wolff/
http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-capitalisms-destructive-power/

https://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu/files/attachments/project/adger_03.pdf

https://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/ecosocialism
https://socialist-alliance.org/policy/environment-climate-change/climate-change-charter
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/08/30/25383434/climate-changes-means-socialism-is-inevitable

https://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/article/noam-chomsky-liberation-ecology
https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/noam-chomsky-donald-trump-action-defeat-republican-us-president-threat-climate-change-nuclear-a7826606.html

http://inthesetimes.com/article/19787/spaceship-earth-lessons-of-airpocalypse-slavoj-zizek-climate-ecology-smog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzcfsq1_bt8 <-- Not just an example of someone taking a socialist approach to climate change, but also relevant to the discussion at hand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g <-- Ditto

 

[MajorRawne]

Why did you have to post all those links? I've only been into environmental stuff for a couple of weeks and have already read enough stuff that my brain is starting to burn up under the strain, and now here's some more stuff to read! :D

 

We are all facing the same problem: humans are, to some unclarified extent, destroying this planet. We are raping the mother that nurtures and protects us. But the thing that prevents us from turning things around is the same problem that prevents us from uniting and keeps us living in fear: we turn on each other when we disagree. As in, we literally want to rip each other's scalps off and crap our opinions into each others' brainpans. The tide will only turn when people allow one another to have different opinions and look for ways to compromise when those opinions conflict. Who are we really helping when we turn on each other, when doing so makes us lose sight of what we are fighting about? We're not helping the Earth. We're not sucking pollution out of the skies, or making friends, or educating one another, or finding a better way of living. We're just dividing ourselves in yet another way, so that whoever is really controlling the human world can conquer us again.

 

(Conspiracy alert) I believe that there are persons unknown, some unimaginably wealthy consortium maybe, who operate in strict and deadly silence. We don't know who they are because we're all blaming governments or faiths or random strangers on the internet. Whoever these people are, their goal probably boils down to two things: money and control. They cannot control the environment so they control us. They cannot buy immortality, but they'll be dead before the climate fails and they have no conscience, so they're raking in every penny and living like each day is their last, because they won't have to face the consequences of what they've done. So they sponsor the continued rape and plunder of Earth, they destroy human progress to protect their income, because they don't care about anything beyond their bottom line.

 

Keep fighting, keep losing sight of the topic, keep dividing yourselves. These secret men are depending on it.

[CARRiON]

1 hour ago, MajorRawne said:

Old men. Running the world.

[Arctangent]

1 hour ago, MajorRawne said:

stuff

This is all well and good as some sort of moral from some cartoon for 5-year-olds that tries its hardest not to ruffle any feathers, but it's way too optimistic and undercooked to really apply to this. There are a lot of people with significant power that are exploiting unsustainable practices that are literally destroying the planet they live on for the sake of cotton paper that literally only has any sort of value because people agree it does. They can get away with it - by the time the repercussions will be unmitigatable, they'll be dead and buried. There's no validity to their side; it's nothing but corporate greed trying to sell itself as a victim of people wanting to both live and have a planet to live on.

 

And turning to other issues, what, are we supposed to make compromises that lead to "okay, okay, you can lynch black / gay / trans / etc. people, but only 50% of them?" There's just serious, big issues where no compromise is possible because anything less than completely solving them won't make them any less awful.

[Nine Inch Heels]

6 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

I'm not arguing that I need or don't need to keep eating meat.  What I'm arguing is that placing such emphasis (not exclusive emphasis, but majority emphasis) on the agriculture economic sector is the wrong way to go.  I'm not saying we should ignore agriculture, but placing too much emphasis on it takes away from the real source of the problem.  Since fossil fuels are the vast majority of the source of greenhouse gas emissions, we should be placing the majority of our emphasis on that economic sector.

As a Marxist, I naturally approached this from a Marxist perspective

As an unpopular realist, I approach this from the POV of what's realistically doable at this point in time. Even if you could snap your fingers to wipe out capitalism, you're not gonna get rid of the dependency on fossil fuels along with it just like that, because the technology required is either not available, or affordable by virtue of resources which may be needed (even though at some point solar power will certainly become cheaper than fossil fuels alone by virtue of the latter running out, if we live to see that day).

 

That's why I have asked you earlier what you think is more likely for people to do, change their consum habits, or start what's basically a worldwide revolution. Which is a question you still haven't answered to my satisfaction, because I explicitly said that you'd have these two options only, and you have deliberately given an answer that missed the point at the very least once. And frankly, I can make more than one guess why that's the case.

 

The whole conversation over you have talked about the big deal, pushed aside any thoughts or arguments for the many small things people can do right now (as if all that was mutually exclusive, but thanks for calling me elitist when you don't even seem to trust people could these two things at once), all of which would revolve around their consum habits (cutting back on meat, not buying stuff from Nestlé because Monsanto, not having a shower for 10 minutes because 5 is usually enough for just about anybody, not wasting energy because we don't need a TV running in each room plus a PC on permanent standby), as if none of it mattered at all. Well, if only 3 billion people would change their habits for the better, you'd have a pretty huge result, not just a small one, and it's most likely happening long before you march successfully against capitalism.

 

Meat is just a perfect example of how much even small individual changes matter (just by virtue of what's involved with it, including lots of fossil fuel, not just your lowballing 10%, but a multiple of that amount if you take the entire supply chain into account, by the way) if several billion people participate. And it's one I like to use, because regardless of how much crap you give about my sources or not, there's no objective argument you can make for it either, you couldn't even make one if it were sustainable, because it's still unhealthy to eat, especially in large amounts.

 

6 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

Not that I'm someone who wants to keep eating meat.

 

On 14.9.2017 at 5:44 PM, YukiRaven said:

Besides, I'm hungry and am about to go cook some chicken for dinner.

Right...

[Remilia Scarlet]

16 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Right...

I'm mostly done arguing with you already, so I'll just address this, as I probably misstated myself.  I'm not opposed to cutting out meat if I need to.  I see no dire need to, and I happen to love meat.

 

*sigh* goddamn ctrl+enter...

 

17 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Even if you could snap your fingers to wipe out capitalism, you're not gonna get rid of the dependency on fossil fuels along with it just like that, because the technology required is either not available, or affordable by virtue of resources which may be needed (even though at some point solar power will certainly become cheaper than fossil fuels alone by virtue of the latter running out, if we live to see that day).

You've claimed you read Das Kapital, but you've clearly misread it, because what you're stating is in direct contradiction to the nature of capitalism.  This system is so inefficient at moving commodities around that it of course cannot properly fund the science to discover the technology, or solar power, or any other type of sustainable energy.  What Marxist propose will solve this.  If there is no profit motive, there's no reason to overproduce.  This include the overproduction of meat, and therefore, the overproduction of the grain needed to feed the animals the meat comes from.  Going further, this also implies less of a need for land use directed towards crops.

 

Additionally, fighting fossil fuels also means fighting the fossil fuels that are used by the agricultural industry.  I cannot state the same in reverse.  Just because a capitalist doesn't have meat anymore doesn't mean they won't stop polluting with fossil fuels.

 

22 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

That's why I have asked you earlier what you think is more likely for people to do, change their consum habits, or start what's basically a worldwide revolution. Which is a question you still haven't answered to my satisfaction, because I explicitly said that you'd have these two options only, and you have deliberately given an answer that missed the point at the very least once. And frankly, I can make more than one guess why that's the case.

Because history shows two things: ethical consumption, which is essentially what you're proposing, has done very little.  It's worked a few times, but has never had a lasting impact, and has failed even more often.  What ethical consumption does, however, is act as a way for the individual to feel as if they did something, while in reality they did very little.  It also, as an action existing within the capitalist system, simply acts to create more markets.  Eventually those new markets are just going to start the cycle over again.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/oct/11/left-values-progressive-self-interest

https://newint.org/blog/2014/03/26/fair-trade-and-global-justice/

 

Some of the links I put behind the spoiler are also relevant here.

 

History also shows that revolutions can and do take place with mass amounts of people in relatively quick amounts of time: the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the Arab Spring, the Spanish Civil War, and so on and so on.  Mass movements can also form in quick amounts of time: Occupy, the mass protests in France just a few days ago, the protests here in the US earlier this year, the protests that vastly outnumbered the white supremacist protests not long ago, the Paris Commune, and so on.  These have undeniably had a lasting impact.  Now if you want to get into the specifics of how those have played out and certain actors within them, that's another debate.  My point here is that people can and have been mass organized.

 

I only partially agree that there are only two answers.  My question here is if you're looking at my proposal as simply "ONLY ATTACK CAPITALISM", or as a broad coalition of movements with the attack of capitalism at the forefront but that include actions such as changes in individual habits and consumption as a lesser but still important plan (my actual proposal).  I also would like to ask if you're looking at my proposals in such a way that Socialism == Marxism == Communism, because while certainly related, they are absolutely not synonymous terms. 

 

32 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

As an unpopular realist

If you want to apply realism to this issue, then I suggest rethinking your argument.  The view of reality is based on observable evidence, and I've already shown and mentioned that A) agriculture amounts to ~10% of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, B) history shows that ethical consumption has little lasting impact except in the short term, C) fossil fuels are the main cause of climate change, and D) capitalism is the root cause of our over dependence on fossil fuels, inefficient distribution of commodities, and by extension, climate change.

 

36 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

as if none of it mattered at all.

I've mentioned that I support such actions again and again.  But to again reiterate, thinking this will save the planet and humanity is asinine in its lack of critical thinking.

Edited September 18, 2017 by YukiRaven : accidentally hit ctrl+enter

[Arctangent]

24 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

That's why I have asked you earlier what you think is more likely for people to do, change their consum habits, or start what's basically a worldwide revolution.

I realize that this wasn't directed at me, but I earnestly believe the the latter is more likely.

 

I mean, not in terms of success, mind, but in actually happening. Namely because it's proactive, as opposed to reactive. You're not actually reducing the amount of meat produced by not eating meat, you're just slightly increasing the amount wasted - really, you're doing the whole waiting game by hoping you'll convince enough people to make enough of a dent in a buyer's profits that in dominoes to the middlemen hard enough to domino all the way to the actual producers. The only impact you'll actually feel is on your own lifestyle, which, hey, is perfectly fine but let's not pretend it has anything to do with impact on the world as whole.

 

Meanwhile, going full-on eco-terrorist requires giving up a whole lot more and is morally questionable, but hitting the right targets will end up forcing some form of change. Between that and the growing awareness that the world's being run into the garbage bin with less and less time to recover, it really doesn't feel hard to imagine revolutionary rallies getting some serious momentum, because hey, if the options are endangering your life to try and save the world or living passively until you're forced to live in a ruined world, going out in a blaze of glory starts to sound like the only right option.

[Remilia Scarlet]

8 minutes ago, Arctangent said:

Between that and the growing awareness that the world's being run into the garbage bin with less and less time to recover, it really doesn't feel hard to imagine revolutionary rallies getting some serious momentum, because hey, if the options are endangering your life to try and save the world or living passively until you're forced to live in a ruined world, going out in a blaze of glory starts to sound like the only right option.

Pretty much.  When something is so dire that it starts to endanger your life (and we're getting closer to that point), you start thinking much more drastically.

[Nine Inch Heels]

7 minutes ago, Arctangent said:

You're not actually reducing the amount of meat produced by not eating meat, you're just slightly increasing the amount wasted - really, you're doing the whole waiting game by hoping you'll convince enough people to make enough of a dent in a buyer's profits that in dominoes to the middlemen hard enough to domino all the way to the actual producers.

Short term I would agree, beyond that I will have to disagree just by virtue of how unlikely it is for any business to spend money on manufacturing several million tons of whatever in spite of knowing it won't sell.

[Arctangent]

Just now, Nine Inch Heels said:

Short term I would agree, beyond that I will have to disagree just by virtue of how unlikely it is for any business to spend money on manufacturing several million tons of whatever in spite of knowing it won't sell.

Well, let me introduce you to a little country called the United States of America, where food waste alone is at over 33%.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Just now, Arctangent said:

Well, let me introduce you to a little country called the United States of America, where food waste alone is at over 33%.

*cough* inefficient commodity production and distribution *cough*

 

Additional paper, btw: http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_451526_en.pdf

[Clay]

There is always Yerba Mate...better than coffee anyways.

[MajorRawne]

9 hours ago, Arctangent said:

This is all well and good as some sort of moral from some cartoon for 5-year-olds that tries its hardest not to ruffle any feathers, but it's way too optimistic and undercooked to really apply to this. There are a lot of people with significant power that are exploiting unsustainable practices that are literally destroying the planet they live on for the sake of cotton paper that literally only has any sort of value because people agree it does. They can get away with it - by the time the repercussions will be unmitigatable, they'll be dead and buried. There's no validity to their side; it's nothing but corporate greed trying to sell itself as a victim of people wanting to both live and have a planet to live on.

 

And turning to other issues, what, are we supposed to make compromises that lead to "okay, okay, you can lynch black / gay / trans / etc. people, but only 50% of them?" There's just serious, big issues where no compromise is possible because anything less than completely solving them won't make them any less awful.

Your argument is somewhat facetious and self-defeating as it proves some of my points.

 

#1: We should be raising awareness starting with younger generations because they're not currently programmed into the American way of life, which is money, sex and violence all at someone else's expense. Nor are they themselves doing anything that destroys the environment on a large scale - they aren't harvesting animals, polluting oceans or putting out millions of tons of Co2. The future belongs to them, not us - how many of us are going to still be here in 2100 to see how things turn out? If we're creating a poisonous dust bowl, they're going to be the ones dying in it.

 

#2: We have agreed that the people responsible for our current mess are either dead, or will be dead by the time the Earth is dying. (By the way, everyone is buying into the climate change activists' assertions that this is certain to happen and is certain to be a catastrophe. We forget that these people are working to their own agenda in exactly the same way as the creepy G-Man conspiracy folks are.)

 

#3: Why do you take my points that compromise, defined by some as "a solution no-one is happy with" but which seems to be the only ideal way to resolve conflicts of opinions, and twist it so that it becomes murder and bigotry? Compromise is NOT saying "you hate gays, I like gays, let's kill half of them", it's "you hate gays, I like gays, let's agree to disagree and let everyone get on with their lives".

 

#4: You have also skirted around my point that the more we all argue about who's right and who's wrong, the planet is still being drained, G-Man is still raking in his trillions and the doomsday clock may be another second closer to midnight. Instead of finding common ground (my efforts to find this common ground were deflected by some bizarre rant about murdering people), we are just going round in circles looking for justification to fight each other instead of G-Man.

 

What's terrifying is the number of readers who actually liked your post. Is this how non-Aspies think - do you all instantly turn to thoughts of murder and destruction? Is this why the Earth is in the state it's in? Is this why more people are being diagnosed with autism every year, not just because detection methods and awareness are growing, but because autistics are that sub-group of homo sapiens who have no interest at all in murdering humans/animals/the environment? Is humanity evolving into something that's going to work, instead of destroy?

 

 

[Cruduxy Pegg]

Lol not everyone in this world is part of a conspiracy theory that has been on forever. If anything climate change would be their #1 enemy once it wipes out their sources of income.

 

All the fight about eating meat or not. Do you know what they can do? Force a quota on farms that they may not exceed until the quota is raised again (thanks overpopulation). Nothing to do with politics or people fighting over their beliefs. 

[Nine Inch Heels]

39 minutes ago, Pegg said:

Force a quota on farms that they may not exceed until the quota is raised again (thanks overpopulation). Nothing to do with politics or people fighting over their beliefs.

Not that I'm against the idea of quotas, but how are you gonna enforce them without the involvement of politics, on a larger scale for that matter?

 

9 hours ago, Arctangent said:

Well, let me introduce you to a little country called the United States of America, where food waste alone is at over 33%.

Not saying food isn't going to be wasted one way or another, but where does it say that (over)supply and demand aren't related at all? Sorry if I missed that, in which case I would consider myself standing (at least partially) corrected.