• Thrift3499@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can you provide another example please? I’m not sure I follow the bucket analogy.

    If I choose not to eat meat it lessens the demand for it (however minutely). On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.

    What am I missing?

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not sure why he believes citing that graph is some great counterpoint. Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering. The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.

      Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.

      Change the minds of more people, and watch that change the rate of supply of course.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering.

        this is not causal

        • Thrift3499@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just double checked the definition of causal here and I’m pretty sure it is. As the demand for a product falls, less is produced.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.

        how? how can you know whether a farm can even expand to accommodate more production?

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.

        any excuse you make doesn’t change whether more animals were killed this year than last, regardless of how many vegans there are.

        • Thrift3499@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think I agree with this, as less people buy meat the demand for it falls. As the demand falls less is produced. Kind of a simple take I guess but I don’t think your comment makes sense.

          Is there an angle to this that I’ve missed?

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            as less people buy meat the demand for it falls.

            as far as i can tell, that’s never happened. so, in practice, being vegan has never caused a reduction in suffering.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.

      that has never happened. if it had, if being vegan had caused production of meat to fall, then i think you could make a case. but it hasn’t so you can’t.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      i didn’t like the bucket analogy when i wrote it. i don’t blame you.

      i’m just looking for proof of causation between being vegan and suffering being reduced.