As a member of the commons I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or amused by your condescending tone.
I eat meat because I like it and I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people.
back
6 comments
Perhaps English isn't your first language? This is what your parent comment is referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Your statement also further solidifies his/her point.
The whole point of Schwarzenegger's advice this is that, while you like meat and find it insulting to have someone else's views imposed on you, for many purposes you are the one imposing his own view onto others by eating meat, since that means keeping alive the industry that contributes to 20% or 25% of all carbon emissions in the world. Others may not like that, and will try to convince you and other meat-eaters like myself to stop or reduce meat consumption.
NIT: not carbon, but greenhouse gases. Specifically methane, which is 30x more potent a greenhouse gas.
(Note, I realize that methane contains a carbon, I'm just clarifying that many people thing CO2 when the word carbon is used.)
> I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people
The amount of resources necessary to grow meat necessitates the imposition of your view of the world on other people.
I eat meat, too. But it's important to own the consequences of your decisions.
While there is an argument that economic coercion is true coercion, most people think that if you freely choose to provide a service (like farming animals), and freely enter into commercial arrangements concerning the fruits of your labour (selling meat) to others who freely choose to swap money for the things you're selling them, then no imposition has occurred.
The main way to make your argument work I think is by looking at the externalities imposed on everyone, but things become less clear cut then, because nothing we do is entirely free of side effects, and choosing which to restrict legally is not simple and ideally should be done impartially when it is done.
Those externalities are the imposition I was referring to, yes. The costs borne by people who are not getting that delicious ribeye cannot be ignored.
And nothing is free of side effects, of course. Every activity is political activity, every activity is economic activity. You might have noted that I said nothing about "restrict[ing] legally"; your choices (and mine!) have consequences that we must own, and that is a completely separate topic from what should be legislated about.
>"I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people."
Everyone does, just not necessarily directly.
Meat eating has consequences that extend beyond those that choose to eat meat. If our choices existed in isolation to the rest of the world, then we could say we didn't impose our view of the world on other people.
I'm not saying you have to stop eating meat, but at least do so with awareness of what happened before the meat arrived on your plate.
I live in a city, rarely drive and have been consciously limiting my air travel for over a decade (tricky when my family and friends live abroad) —
May i enjoy a steak once a month, please?
Who dictates what spread of consumption and therefore environmental impact I am allowed?
- ed
Apologies, I responded here instead of generally..
As far as I know, no one's trying to pass a law banning your consumption of steaks. So this might be what's considered a strawman argument.
As for what dictates the consumption and environmental impact, in theory it should be your ability to afford that steak.
The price of beef, however, from calf to cow to transport to butchering to your plate, is so heavily subsidized all along the way--and the externalities like environmental impact mostly unaddressed--that that steak you're getting is the deal of the millenium.
I'd like to see how much that steak would cost if it weren't subsidized, and its pollutant side-effects were properly assessed and taxed. Maybe once a month is all you'd be able to afford.
You've clearly misunderstood me. I'm asking for greater awareness. How are you getting that mixed up with permission?
Suggesting a 'Meatless Monday' (which is the campaign) or that one or two days without meat to reduce your consumption is not imposing your view.
It's actually quite the opposite, it is a compromise that understands that you and many other people do enjoy meat and do not want to give it up completely while still reducing the total consumption across the whole population.
You impose your view of the world on the sentient beings that that you pay for other people kill for you to eat.