Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Opinion: "The End of Meat Is Here" - NY Times

I don't have a problem with people having smartphones - or laptops, or tablets - the production of which all rely heavily on exploitative labour in LMICs - my point was that would the NY Times be concerned about the working poor if it wasn't American working poor in relation to the article?
I don't have a problem with people flying either, or eating meat for that matter. Because, like most people, I'd be a hypocrite. I don't live a perfectly ethical life - nowhere near.
What I have a problem with is people picking and choosing what they're holier than thou about based on their choices, and their lifestyle, whilst ignoring all the things they do which contribute to this shitty world where exploitation, be it of animals or people is totally out of control. It's the intent - "meat is not essential, therefore no one should eat it, but all my exploitative purchasing habits/lifestyles are totally justified."
You bought up the comparison with smartphones and I think it's a poor one. A smartphone/internet connection is a basic need for millions of people and not something trivial for selfies LOLz.
And no one here - as far as I can see- has argued, "meat is not essential, therefore no one should eat it."
 
There is an awful lot of difference between these things; there's no point pretending they are all equivalent. Meat is closer to fast fashion that you mention - which is actually worse, it's almost indefensible and has had quite a hammering recently as an industry, deservedly so.
Agreed; it's interesting to see where the tipping point is for all these industries - meat, fashion, electronics (probably should have used games consoles or something similar as an example rather than phones); there has to be a will from industry, along with consumer demand to improve things but for the UK/US I just don't see things changing except at a glacial pace.
 
You bought up the comparison with smartphones and I think it's a poor one. A smartphone/internet connection is a basic need for millions of people and not something trivial for selfies LOLz.
Phones probably not best example - was shorthand for cheap electronics, but yes could have used a better example of that category.
And no one here - as far as I can see- has argued, "meat is not essential, therefore no one should eat it."
Hence my use of "intent".
 
Agreed; it's interesting to see where the tipping point is for all these industries - meat, fashion, electronics (probably should have used games consoles or something similar as an example rather than phones); there has to be a will from industry, along with consumer demand to improve things but for the UK/US I just don't see things changing except at a glacial pace.
As I was saying above I think it will happen out of sheer practicality before it does because of any sort of consumer demand - though that helps, it is often a product of the practicality (as meat gets more expensive the arguments for not eating it become stronger). The meat industry in the US - and this is an NYT article after all - is massively strong politically and has been for decades with the resultant effect on social propaganda. It's weaker in Europe I think and the environmental arguments have more influence so there could be restrictions placed on the industry sooner.
 
"If you care about the working poor, about racial justice, and about climate change, you have to stop eating animals."

This sentence is clearly written by a wealthy white person living in a wealthy country who is writing only for wealthy white people living in a wealthy country. Seriously :rolleyes::facepalm:
Explain?
 
"If you care about the working poor, about racial justice, and about climate change, you have to stop eating animals."

This sentence is clearly written by a wealthy white person living in a wealthy country who is writing only for wealthy white people living in a wealthy country. Seriously :rolleyes::facepalm:

I think you left a virtue unsignalled. Just a little one, over there behind that plant look. Better get on that ASAP.
 
Drugs is a good one. Given the environmental and social damage cocaine causes, anyone who uses it but judges other's choices can fuck right off.

Really depends on the drug, but honestly I agree with you about cocaine. I do tons of drugs but nobody's growing coca in this country so anyone who has it has bought it from a supply chain that involves people who have mailed parents their kids heads in boxes. It's also the only drug I've ever actually caught heat for for turning down when it was offered to me for free, bunch of people rolling their eyes asking what's wrong with me and getting pretty mad when I told them that the money that was spent on it went to finance death squads and destroy lives. With opiates the supply chain is pharmeceutical companies and fradulent prescriptions, alphabet soup drugs come from weird chemical factories in southeast asia that probably aren't great either but with cocaine I know exactly where it came from and who got it here and I don't like it. I'm not going to go on a crusade about it or judge people much who haven't thought about it (unless you're making fun of me for not taking it), but I've never taken it and never will, unless I happen to be in south america and find some leaves to chew or something.
 
Here's an interesting piece that deserves a more considered response than the usual tag-team, shouting-over trolling that happens here.






Oh, and seeing as the diet of the author seems to be of critical importance to some people, I looked it up. He's neither a vegan or a fully veggie.

What's the gist of it?
 
Try telling a poor non-white farmer in a developing country that they are harming their own economic, racial and climate interests by taking a cow or some chickens to a market instead of growing quiona.
Is there a term for a false dichotomy combined with a non-sequitur? :confused:
 
Try telling a poor non-white farmer in a developing country that they are harming their own economic, racial and climate interests by taking a cow or some chickens to a market instead of growing quiona.

Try finding a poor, non-white, industrial-scale factory farmer in a developing country. Then try reading the article you're shitcanning.
 
If meat consumption decreases, then it will likely be accompanied by decreasing living standards in general; people tend to want to increase the variety of their diet, not decrease it. I think the dietary moralists should be wary about crowing over such developments, for their own sake at least. Although I won't protest too much if they want to rhetorically shoot themselves in the foot.
 
If meat consumption decreases, then it will likely be accompanied by decreasing living standards in general; people tend to want to increase the variety of their diet, not decrease it. I think the dietary moralists should be wary about crowing over such developments, for their own sake at least. Although I won't protest too much if they want to rhetorically shoot themselves in the foot.

If meat consumption increases the environmental impacts will reduce living standards. Why do you think the Amazon has started mysteriously going up in flames?
 
There is actually a very important discussion to be had around means of food production and consumption, and I'm increasingly pissed off with the endless stupid "veggie" jokes that turn up from the 80s on these things, so I'll just say that.

TBF at least the gammons have updated their schtick to include the word 'quinoa'.
 
How does a list of other things that are also bad make this not bad? :confused:

Should give up frequent flying instead? Why not give up both?

Yes, the title is click-baity. Clearly the End of Meat is not here. What the title really means is The End of Meat As A Justifiable Consumable Is Here (So Stop Eating It).

I agree with the (newly expanded by me) title.
 
Back
Top Bottom