For the sake of argumentation, let’s restrict my call to veganism to the richest 10% of the world only.

I refuse any accusation of victim-blaming, because someone that rich is not a victim.

Besides: a victim of… what, exactly? The main victims of these issues (animal suffering, climate change, deforestation, water usage, antibiotic resistance, etc) are animals themselves. Human beings are secondary victims only, and although you can argue that rich humans will always cope better with all those problems than poor humans, it’s a flimsy defence to say that you are a “victim” and that those advocating for more ethical and sustainable lifestyles are “blaming” you.

tripu boosted

@tripu This misses a very important point… While almost all land suitable for crops is also suitable for animals the reverse isnt true. In fact it is quite often the case animals are raised on land explicitly not suitable for crops. I dont know the exact breakdown, and that would be important to evaluate this fairly. But I know from my interaction with farmers that a great many of them raise their livestock on mountainous land not suited for crops and use fertile farmland mostly for crops.. Even when the land is flat and not mountainous it is often unsuitable for crops due to the makeup of the soil (too rocky, no good drainage, etc)


That too.

But I’m in the richest 2% globally, know quite many people who are probably in the 1%, and none of them use private jets. The impact of that is at the very end of the tail of the distribution, perhaps a fraction of a fraction of the 1%.

I would absolutely tell a rich person to avoid flying private. But it’s way more cost-effective to have hundreds of millions of people switch to plant-based diets.

Both initiatives can (should) coexist.

3️⃣ Number of animals affected:

You could reduce quite a lot your carbon footprint by replacing all your beef and lamb with chicken and fish (big mammals emit far more CO₂ per kg of protein than poultry and fish). The problem is, then you would be indirectly responsible for many, many more individual animals raised in industrial farms and killed in slaughterhouses.

Show thread

2️⃣ Carbon emissions:

Think you can stick to your steaks and omelettes and at the same time manage to significantly reduce your carbon footprint by “eating locally”? Actually, transport accounts for a very small fraction of carbon released in food production (be it plant- or animal-based).


“most food internationally comes by ship. And, actually shipping is very carbon efficient. You’re going to emit 10 to 20 times less CO₂ than trucks per kilometre and 50 times less than flying. Most of your soy or your avocados are nearly always coming by ship and shipping actually has a very, very small carbon footprint.”

Hannah Ritchie

Show thread

1️⃣ Land usage:

Crops for human consumption make up only 23% of all agricultural land worldwide, and yet they provide 83% of all calories.

Plant-based calories (and proteins) are much more efficient and require way less land and water than meat and dairy.

Show thread

I became a (aspiring ) almost exclusively to contribute to reduce animal .

With time, I realised that the other reasons to avoid animal-based foods are surprisingly strong, too.


Sometimes, only sometimes, there is progress on the front. Not that you’ll read a lot about it on the news, or see politicians and celebrities praising this development.

And yet, if you call yourself a you should celebrate this, and advocate for more countries to follow suit (otherwise, what kind of logical and moral contortions are you making to justify plain old, ages-old, sex-based discrimination?)


tripu boosted

Read my lips:

An audio show that can only be played in an Apple player on an Apple device is not a podcast.

An audio show that can only be played in Spotify is not a podcast.

Repeat ad nauseam for any other proprietary audio show platforms.

A #podcast is an #RSS feed with enclosures of audio files which are playable across the whole ecosystem of podcast players.

Any reporter who reports on exclusive audio shows and calls them “podcasts” are doing a grave disservice to their audience.

tripu boosted

Since I left home and started working full time, I’ve lived in eight places (five cities, three countries, two continents, both sharing a flat and living alone).

For whatever reason, in none of those places there was a .

A month ago we moved to the ninth place (and sixth city), and now I have a dishwasher, and every day I”m like OH MY GOD THIS IS AWESOME THIS IS THE FUTURE.


I guess it depends on whether reasons are “ideological”, “cultural”, “managerial”, “scientific”, etc.

I mentioned a few examples of food that is usually not served today at canteens at public places, mostly for good reasons. In principle, the reason “we as a society/government/country/prison prefer not to support industrial farming and slaughterhouses, minimise animal suffering, and significantly reduce carbon emissions, to the extent that we can still serve nutritious and tasty food” seems equally valid to me. I would almost argue that the onus is on whoever says “no, but we need to have chicken served” to prove their position…


As long as someone has to decide what to offer, it makes sense to have more or less objective criteria to design menus.

Today, economic criteria forbid caviar, truffle, wild salmon, oysters, etc. at public institutions — and we understand that. Medical criteria often forbid nuts and seafood because of allergies, and that’s OK. Doctors also may veto sugary drinks, fried chicken, donuts, sugar-coated cereal, etc. and nobody is outraged. In the west, canteens and catering don’t serve dog or snake for cultural and PR reasons (although those may be perfectly reasonable dishes elsewhere) and we don’t give that a second thought.

…and so, if there were good economic, environmental and ethical criteria to avoid meat, fish, eggs and/or dairy at schools, prisons or hospitals, why not do it? Why are those criteria any less important?

(I do think there are good economic, environmental and ethical criteria.)


There are more than two or three major types of diet, not to mention the weird ones. I don’t see a qualitative difference between saying “pick between beef and vegetable stew”, “pick between salmon sandwich, kosher lasagna or creamed leeks”, or any other tuple of options. In all cases someone high above made a political decision about what exactly to offer.

If all two or three options available happen not to have any fish or meat as ingredients, so what? We vegetarians are very used to being offered non- options only.


Do you? I think it depends on the country, state, type of institution, whether menus are prepared internally or outsourced, policy at the particular institution, etc.

In any case, my point is: even if they always gave you two options, you are still “forced”, because you’re denied all the other myriad possible foods one could want.

tripu boosted


But, how is the government NOT forcing food on people who eat at state-run institutions now? I mean, it’s not like those are restaurants with an open menu or you can ask the chef for variations…

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.