Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. Also, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    you are saying this in english, to a (self-)selected demographic subset of english speakers. you are encouraging a particular set of people not to have children. that’s eugenics. unless you can find a way to convey this message to everyone, at once, in an identical message given cultural and other contexts, you will be biasing the message to be more effective among some segment of the populous.

        • Senal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than “I said so” followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn’t leave much in the way of conversation points.

          But lets give it a go.

          Firstly there was no demand or proposal for any demographic to partake in the activity mentioned.

          Secondly, assuming the first point wasn’t true, by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity, which it patently ridiculous.

          Thirdly, the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn’t a thought terminating cliche, perhaps you could claim ad hominem but as I said before ,“I’m right, because reasons” doesn’t leave many conversational avenues open.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn’t a thought terminating cliche

            it is, and saying it isn’t doesn’t change that.

            • Senal@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Indeed, but the definition does, I don’t care at all about this hill, but not being able to understand the application of the definition of words is going to make conversations difficult for you.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity,

            they are advocating for a set of actions. not simply mentioning them.

            • Senal@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Point to the advocation.

              Edit: changed my mind, no need, see my other reply , good luck.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than “I said so” followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn’t leave much in the way of conversation points.

            that’s not what happened. what i said were all truth claims. you can decide whether i was wrong about any of them (i’m not), but no argument at all is needed.

            • Senal@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Just to be clear you are saying you didn’t provide a claim of truth with no supporting argument because, and I quote

              what i said were all truth claims.

              no argument at all is needed.

              I know you aren’t going to understand how your reply doesn’t make sense but if in the future you come back to this , this kind of thing is what people call mental gymnastics.

              It kinda feels like punching down at this point so I’ll leave you be.

    • AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sorry buddy, that isn’t how this works. Great try tho. Go back to the whiteboard and come back when you have valuable input to share.

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      So are you interpreting the comment as only people who speak English should not have kids?

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        only people who speak english can read that comment. they are only talking to english-literate people.

        edit: … english-literate people who are on lemmy.

        • BussyCat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          That was not my question. Do you think the OP meant that only people who speak English should not have kids?

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            no. i don’t think that. but i think the propaganda they’ve produced can only have that effect.

            • BussyCat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              So ignoring the fact that English speaking is still not part of eugenics, do you think the only way it can be non eugenics based is if they shared those same sentiments to every country in every language in equal proportion? Or how else could they share the belief that having children is bad for the planet without it being eugenics based on your opinion?

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                do you think the only way it can be non eugenics based is if they shared those same sentiments to every country in every language in equal proportion?

                yes

                edit: and the sentiment needs to be conveyed in a way that is equally weighted culturally and linguistically. which is to say there is no method, to my way of thinking, to advocate for antinatalism that is not eugenics.