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. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • Pup Biru@aussie.zoneEnglish
    6·
    24 hours ago

    a diet that doesn’t include killing animals at all is objectively better.

    assuming animals wouldn’t be killed either way, yes… but even if they’re killed for other livestock, that’s going to continue regardless of eating them or not so the difference is practically nothing. you have to reduce the other livestock before any effect on kangaroos is felt

    and also, something is better than nothing… i think convincing a majority of people to not eat meat just isn’t realistic. subbing out beef for roo (and chicken and pork) is a very easy trade, and i’ve switched a lot of people to do the same. it’s pretty easy to convince people to do that. it’s very difficult to convince people to eat exclusively vegetarian

    • threeduck@aussie.zone
      1·
      9 hours ago

      Yeah currently the difference doesn’t amount to much because we’re still eating livestock, BUT if we stopped eating that livestock, we could return to a more natural Australia where shooting our national animals isn’t a requirement.

      As I said, you’re right, eating roos is definitely better, but your argument is an appeal to futility, “I won’t be able to convince everyone to stop eating meat, so I’ll continue doing moral failures”. You could use that argument to continue all horrible injustices, right? “I won’t be able to convince everyone to vote for Labor, so I’ll vote Liberal as well”.

      It’s much MUCH easier to convince people to drop meat when you’ve done it yourself, I’ve converted 5 of my friends over the course of my 6 years, two of which are from rural NZ.