undefined | Better HN

0 pointsRosanaAnaDana5y ago0 comments

I think just as arguably as recycling is a gateway behavior to more substantive changes, its just as likely to preclude engaging in more substantive changes. There's likely a masters thesis worth of work in our disagreement, but I see things like recycling and going vegetarian as an anesthetic that prevents engaging in additional action.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

DFHippie5y ago· 1 in thread

Going vegetarian is an anesthetic? It's the single biggest thing a meat eater can do to reduce their carbon footprint! What do you consider effective action if going vegetarian doesn't count? If you tell people nothing they do is adequate, odds are you aren't going to win them to your cause. I'm pretty sure most vegetarians are fighting for stronger action, not sitting on the sidelines saying, "nah, I've done my bit." The vegetarians are your shock troops, not sellouts.

RosanaAnaDanaOP5y ago

Yes, I think vegetarianism as an individual response to climate change is largely an anesthetic. I think individual responses in general are done as anesthetic (you feel pressure to act, and so you do something within your purview to relieve that pressure). I have lost faith in the ideal of collective individualism's ability to move the needle on these issues based on my read of the previous 60 years of history. I also think its disingenuous and irresponsible to put the onus on individuals. I think that for collective action at the scale required to address what is happening to our global climate can only happen through government mandated changes to manufacturing and setting carbon standards at the point and process of production. If we want to deal with this, the answer is that meat needs to be much more expensive, and that expense needs to be borne by the producers. All products and consumption need to represent their real impact on climate. Arguing for individual vegetarianism is nibbling around the edge at best (see below) and a analgesic at worst. The pain of there being a problem needs to be persistent and long lasting for us to address the much more central issues at hand.

In the 1970's the US rate of vegetarianism was around 1%. In 2008, the rate was around 3%. In 2015, still around 3%. There is some 2018 data that says 4% (1). These surveys have margins of error, but lets be charitable and say they are spot on. Based on these data, we could expect to see a 20% adoption of vegetarianism by the year 2210. We could expect to see a 50% adoption by around 2600.

Simply put, individual action is not enough to make even a bug-splat on a windshields difference to this issue. Individuals who make personal decisions to eat less meat may be the shock troops and I do believe those are also the ones going above and beyond to make additional change happen. However, its not adequate. Its not enough. And I am arguing that advocating for solving or addressing this issue through individual change is counter-productive, because even being ridiculously charitable regarding rates of adoption, it simple wont be enough to even nudge the needle on climate change.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#:~:te....