Read the second paragraph again. I explicitly said that I’m not happy about their suffering, regardless of their political opinions.
It’s just disingenuous to claim that people merely take issue with their opinions when it’s the actions that are the real problem, although that still doesn’t justify schadenfreude.
This is “people with a different political opinion are suffering, yaaaaaay!”
To be fair, the issue isn’t that they have “a different political opinion”, the issue is that they will cause insane amounts of suffering and deaths down the line if they get their way. Climate change will kill millions of people, and trump and his supporters seek to make it even worse for short term political gain (aside from the attempts to install an authoritarian dictatorship and all that stuff).
That being said, I’m also not happy when indoctrinated people suffer, regardless of their murderous ideologies. Imo it’s more of a cultural issue, and nobody has any direct control over the culture/social environment that they grow up in.
This one isn’t human to human transmittable. It jumped to one human, but can’t infect other humans from there, so unless it mutates in a bad way it won’t start a pandemic. That’s very unlikely with one infection, but there will be more if it stays on animal farms.
It would take away breeding ground for human transmittable mutations. With literally billions of animals, mainly in filthy conditions, we just keep rolling the dice every day for a strain that starts a pandemic. We can either try to abolish factory farming, or just hope that the next pandemic won’t be much worse than covid.
With our current lifestyles, 7 billion humans aren’t sustainable for earth, which results in a lot of habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and so on. That’s what my analogy to deer overpopulation was getting at. Even if we had a global 1 child limit, it would take a few generations until an actually sustainable population is reached.
If we have a right to live even though we cause so much destruction, it’s inconsistent to kill deer for causing way, way less damage than us.
You wouldn’t need to sterilize more deer for population control than with hunting, obviously. You’d need to sterilize less in total because they’d still compete for food and habitat, just have no offspring. How is that unfeasible? I never said that you’d have to sterilize every single one lol, just enough to impact the fertility of their population in regions where its necessary due to human influence.
If you have to choose between killing a crying child or killing an adult deer, which would you think is the more moral choice?
What does that have to do with anything? Of course killing a human is worse, but that doesn’t mean that killing a deer isn’t cruel.
Why don’t we spay entire wild populations of deer? :DD
Well, we do this with hundreds of millions of pets and BILLIONS of livestock animals just to improve taste, and hunters already go around shooting them, surely there would be a practical way to tranquilize them and do a snip or something. This is an issue we’re responsible for after all, as you said. But yeah, there’s no profit and no tasty corpses to be gained so it’s not an option, I get it.
Thanks for the laughs though, young city dweller
I’m not sure why you felt the need to be a condescending prick by the way. Maybe basic decency and manners aren’t valued in your culture, so I’ll try not to judge your character based on that. Have a nice day anyways.
When it is necessary. Humans have replaced the apex predators in a lot of places. If population control isn’t done with deer, the population skyrockets, gets out of control, and destroys the ecology, taking several species and the environment with it
But all that applies to humans, and much more so. The harm done by deer overpopulation is completely and utterly dwarfed by the habitat destruction, pollution and climate change that our overpopulation causes. Based on your argumentation, hunting humans for population control is necessary and ethical.
But of course nobody will apply the logic consistently because of how cruel it would be.
Why don’t we implement more humane population control measures for deer, like spaying/neutering? It might have something to do with humans liking the taste of their dead bodies…
(game meaf from necessary population control = ethical imo)
At what point do you consider population control necessary? The inconvenient truth is that the worst instance of unsustainable overpopulation is us humans. No other species could come close to the harm and destruction we cause. Making special exceptions for ourselves while we are the worst offenders by far would be very hypocritical. If you consider population control ethical, you ought to consider school shootings, murder, etc. ethical as well.
I think we need to find better solutions than going on killing sprees.
the “quality of life” question is rather meaningless, animals that exist in the food supply chain were literally born so they could be turned into food.
And if someone bred humans to be slaves, these would be meant to be slaves, so it would actually be moral to keep them as slaves.
Solid logic. Abolishion was a mistake, guys!
There’s always a supplier and a consumer. The pollution of these 100 corporations is caused on behalf of their customers who fund them in exchange for fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. They are both responsible, it’s 2 sides of the same coin.
Of course, much of this pollution isn’t really avoidable at this point. We can’t have 100% renewable power and electric cars tomorrow. Some really polluting industries will take decades to decarbonize, like steel and cement production. But this makes it even more urgent to adress the low hanging fruit asap, i.e. big sources of pollution that can easily be cut. Private jets are a prime example.
You could say just a few private jet flights or chopping down one single forest won’t make a dent in global carbon emissions, but that doesn’t mean that thousands around the world can keep on doing it indefinitely without consequences for all of us. Especially if they are idols for millions of people, normalizing harm to society that we can’t afford.
A land rover isn’t nearly as polluting and doesn’t drive nearly as far. More importantly, the heart surgeon isn’t a role model in terms of lifestyle aspirations for literally hundreds of millions of followers.
People shouldn’t be judged on a single data point.
It’s not like we’re talking about stealing some sweets from children or something. Climate change just gets worse and worse and worse until we reach net zero co2 emissions. As long as it’s culturally accepted to cause massive amounts of completely unnecessary emissions, we don’t have the slightest chance of fixing this.
The only way a decent person could be doing this is if they were completely uneducated about climate change and their impact as a role model.
Admittedly I don’t know much about her as a person, but how can someone who uses a private jet in 2024 be considered a decent person by any stretch?
Having such a ludicrously unsustainable lifestyle in a climate emergency that will kill millions and displace hundreds of millions in just a few decades is a crime against humanity, change my mind.
We could tax greenhouse gas emissions to internalize the environmental cost.
If the beef burger would cost 2x more than the plant-based burger (which basically tastes the same but has 90% fewer emissions), most people would choose the plant-based one. That would massively reduce food related ghg emissions, and also create a huge incentive to develop better alternatives/lab meat.
Good to know that it’s already implemented on kbin, thanks!
I agree that there’s no way around petrochemicals, and we’ll have to offset the emissions to reach net 0.
Gas heating has an alternative though. Heat pumps are already cheaper to run compared to gas heating, even without any carbon offsetting.
The pressure to reach net 0 is only gonna grow as the impacts of climate change get worse. To reach net 0 we’ll have to offset all significant emissions. When the offsets are priced in, using gas heaters becomes insanely expensive in comparison to heat pumps.
It’s just a matter of time until gas heating is essentially dead. It might be in 10 years or 20 years, but there’s no way around it.