Who wants it back to normal ? Investor dilemma?

I’m sorry but all are bullshit ideas. A result of brainwashing. I already don’t shower every day, reducing it even further would cause me to stink pretty bad! Thermostat? I have all thermostats at minimum all winter (it’s somehow still too hot in my flat). Streaming? Give me a break!

Exactly! This is what I call brainwashed society. Huge corporations pollute the environment with their factories, but it’s you who should segregate their trash and make these small insignificant changes so that you feel better about yourself. The change has to be done on industry level.

I think you should be more respectful in your replies. You are implying I am brainwashed.

1 Like

@Bojack
I don’t understand why are so aggressive? I just said reduce your meat consumption. Nobody is talking about meat substitutes? Most delicous food is meatless anyway?

1 Like

I can agree that industry has the main burden, but the individuals decide who to vote for and what companies to support or not by buying their products. So I think it’s very much our duty to drive the change.

Sorry for my tone, please keep in mind I don’t mean to personally attack or insult you. He said eat less meat. I said the alternatives are not really much better. Then I heard reduce not substitute. I just don’t like these logical battles. If you reduce meat, you have to replace it with some other source of protein and nutrients.

Again, no disrespect meant.

It’s amazing how polarising the meat discussion can be! I heard that at google they tried to introduced ONE day a week without meat in the cantine and people revolted so much that they had to revert the change.

I believe there is a nice analogy with the corona situation.

Currently our consumption of a lot of thing is growing exponentially (Water, metals, fertile lands, trees, petrol, …).

There definitely is a possible technological way out, but are those exponential flat enough to have enough time and resource to get to it?

For example, for each gram of metal, we need more energy to extract it. Same thing for the petrol, same thing for the food as we are depleting the soil natural resource, same thing for the water which needs to be transported where there previously was water.

I’m 100% sure that we can do without a few of those, but can we handle all? And can we continue to look for the technological way out when the society is not stable anymore due to one of those?

So my understanding is that it is most likely safer (if not needed) to pursue both at the same time.

And to come back to the original question. As I suppose most people on this forum, I also consumes a lot less than my peers, but I believe that without them consuming, my easy gain with stock would not be the same…

1 Like

…plenty of which can come from plants.

Apologies accepted.

1 Like

Ha! Here lies the error. How do you know if some people aren’t eating too much proteins per day?

I’m sorry but these are fallacies. The drive for mobility resulted in an enormous increase of efficiency for both electronics as well as data transfer and wireless emissions (ie. transfering data faster reduces the time of antena usage).

If not for this drive, you’d be watching SRF on your old CRT tv and the environment would be no better for that.

I think the discussion here has taken a wrong turn. And I need to work at my unfulfilling but well-paying job.

I’m aggressive, because you guys sound like you’re being spoon-fed the propaganda and swallow it without second thought. And I’m already noticing I’m kind of tired of this home office curfew and it makes me a bit impatient. They want to ban meat and you’re going to allow it. Just please watch the video I posted, which touches on these points.

Meat eaters are generally emotional less stable when it comes to this topic. Most of the time you can forget to have a civilized discussion. That’s why I’m leaving this topic.

“Eat less meat” doesn’t mean “you are a shitty person without morals and you should feel bad”.

we could also start by not subsidising dirty technology, like fossil fuels extraction companies

Some are for sure. Not me, I’m as slim as you should get :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

I would agree to a ban on meat, like many other bad things like plastic bottles or straws or whatever. There’s no way we can produce meat (but also milk and cheese) without IMMENSE suffering of other species, even in non-factory farms. Perhaps lab meat would one day solve the problem, but until then, only hunted meat would be a reasonable choice from my (brainwashed?) point of view.

just for fact about soy, most of it around 80% is to feed animals …

1 Like

AHAHAHAHAAahahah ah ah ah. Sorry but that’s bull…
I noticed the opposite, actually, but I won’t use it as an argument against vegetarians.

3 Likes

Let me give you an example from the past: some decades ago there was this craze saying paper bags are bad and we should replace it with plastic. Also recyclable bottles were gone and it was all supposed to be for the good of the environment. How can you be sure that it’s not the same with meat?

Sure, obesity is a problem, but it’s mostly caused by high carbohydrate diet rich in sugar, and highly processed food. A fresh steak is not that kind of food.

By reading and partipating to this forum, you confirm you have read and agree with the disclaimer presented on http://www.mustachianpost.com/
En lisant et participant à ce forum, vous confirmez avoir lu et être d'accord avec l'avis de dégagement de responsabilité présenté sur http://www.mustachianpost.com/fr/