• SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in “cheese mountain” type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.

    That being said, ‘commie’ is a terrible communicator if that’s what they’re trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you’re on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the ‘invisible hand of the free market’ does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.

    • amzd@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      “If you don’t buy it a company will throw it away instead” is not a very good argument to buy something if you even believe it to be true at all.

      • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying the act of “not buying it” (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.

        With the point being that it’s a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.

        • amzd@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your argument is called the nirvana fallacy;

          “World peace would be ideal; this peace treaty fails to completely achieve world peace; therefore this peace treaty is not worth doing.”

          And I do not accept that.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            it’s not a nirvana fallacy. they’re actually right, being vegan has no impact at all. a peace treaty actually creates peace. buying beans just means beans are sold, it doesn’t do anything to change any of the problems.

        • rautapekoni
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don’t like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don’t matter, at all.

          • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not defeatist, it’s pushing back against the wishful thinking that “voting with your dollar” is effective and your responsibility ends there.

            • shapesandstuff@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean if they make substantially less money with product x they scale back production. Just like with any other product.

              Really not that complicated. Obviously they’re not tracking my personal consumption, nobody believes that.

        • shapesandstuff@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?