The oil industry is, of course, doing all that polluting for the sheer fun of it. Our collective consumption habits, esp. in the PRIVILEGED western countries, have absolutely nothing to do with it.

There is no sustainable way to eat the amount of meat we do, no matter how much or how little capitalism gets involved. Even assuming the absolute best (aka unrealistic) stats for grass-fed cows, we’d still have to reduce our meat consumption to 1/7 of where it currently is. Do you think that is doable just by destroying some companies? Do you think people would just accept that???

ANY effective, long-term collective change REQUIRES that the large majority of people CHANGE THEIR CONSUMPTION HABBITS. While not great, the private plane stuff is exactly as pointless as the paper straws. Both are ways for everyone to point the finger at everyone else, and not have to change.

If the government implemented the “correct” laws tomorrow, but the populace doesn’t want to change their habits, they will vote in people that give them back their old, bad things.

If a company implemented to “correct” processes, but the consumers don’t want to pay the necessary price, they go bankrupt, and the company with the “incorrect, but cheap” processes wins.

ALL COLLECTIVE ACTION IS A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL CHANGE. There is no alternative!

The Prime Video example was more like moving from nano-service insanity to sanity. They basically split EVERY POSSIBLE STEP into separate lambdas. They switched to still using microservices, but they do all transcoding steps for a single video on the same microservice instance (aka sanity).

But that’s true of literally every single community. Posting copyrighted images in a pics community, copyrighted music in a little video/gif, a nazi denying the holocaust (illegal in Germany) in one little comment a hundred comments in…

Who do you think is more likely to overstep? A community very well aware of the risks and the scrutiny they are under, full of people that are themselves aware of the risks, or some rando on some random community?

Obviously, they are allowed to ban or not ban whatever they want, but I just think it’s a very short sighted, quickfire decision.

Because from everything I’ve seen, those communities did not do ANYTHING illegal. They talked about software that can be used that way, but if we go by that measure, discussing any Fediverse software is illegal, because you could use that to host illegal content.

While I understand the idea behind using CSS “correctly”, I have, in my 15 years of professional experience, never ever seen even one project where the hypothetical promises of CSS were actually realized. It ALWAYS ends up with a fuckton of importants, or hunting for ages for the one class fifteen levels of abstraction up that changes your one element, coming up with more and more absurd class names, until they are literally no different from just some random name. Tailwind might seem horrible in a theoretical sense, but in an actually using it sense it’s a heaven sent. I want to change the padding on THIS ONE SINGLE ELEMENT, I change it EXACTLY RIGHT THERE where the element is defined, and i can be absolutely sure that I haven’t accidentally cascaded someone else’s work to death.

#CSS, in practice, is the insane idea of every single element on your website sharing global, mutable state, and thinking that’s in anyway smart.

The point is that even without that reason you wouldn’t have any kids. It’s not the cornerstone of your childfree-ness. Neither is it for me, which is why I recognize that it’s morally lazy to rest on the imaginary laurels of not birthing children.

By that logic, every parent could ALSO claim they are doing their part for the earth. Simply by not having EVEN MORE children. Hell, maybe they are better than you because you only didn’t have 2 kids, but they didn’t have 4 additional kids. Thats twice the savings, twice the reason to not make the world a better place and blame everyone else!

We could absolutely regulate veganism. Hell, it’s the other way around at the moment. For pretty much every animal rights law, there’s an exception specifically for farm animals. Just removing those exceptions would make factory farming (and therefore like 90% of meat production) illegal.

And in a more general sense, we absolutely can regulate carnism (aka the opposite of veganism), exactly how we regulate a million other moral questions.

But it’s the idiots that CONSTANTLY argue that the world will be fine. The framing of it as protection of animals/the planet/the climate makes it incredibly easy for people to pretend it’s optional, not directly related to them. This isn’t a hypothetical point, EVERY SINGLE climate discussion I’ve ever witnessed some mouthbreather has argued that “the climate will continue to exist, it doesn’t need protecting”.

What needs protecting isn’t the planet, the ecology, the animals or plants, it’s US. It’s ENTIRELY an US problem.

I don’t read it that way, quite the opposite. So, so many people act like this is mostly about protecting the climate or the environment or animals, not about protecting our way of life. The way so many frame it as protecting the earth makes it so easy to make it sound optional.

But the world will be okay, it doesn’t need protecting. It’s the 8 billion humans that RELY on the world AS IT IS NOW that will be fucked. It’s human protection, not ecological protection.

Does she even need Linux? 99% of things that run on Linux will also run on MacOS (or have a MacOS version). If you need a VM, Virtualbox is good enough. I’d recommend Ubuntu, simply because that’s what most people use, ergo you’ll find tutorials/information for every little aspect of it.

Your 7 year old probably also wishes for world peace, better stop working for a better world!

Everything on this world dies, therefore it’s morally totally fine to artificially create, imprison, and then kill billions for no other reason than taste. Every dog dies, therefore shooting them for fun is morally totally fine!

Appeal to nature, seriously, for your 7 year olds sake, look it up.

Sure, and if you could somehow demonstrate that advocating for 100% means those 100 people are definitely, totally not going to change their consumption at all, you’d have an actual point.

Not it doesn’t, and that was basically industry propaganda: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/13/seaweed-cow-feed-trial-fails-methane-reduction-australia

Because veganism is better than vegetarianism. But also, what’s so bad about vegan recipes? A vegetarian can eat those too.

Can you explain what the collective in “collective action” is made up of, if not individuals? How does your solution not require individual action? “My individual vote won’t change anything” is the exact argument you’re making.

But let’s pretend a world filled with meat eaters would vote for the anti-meat party. Suddenly, meat costs 3 times as much (at the very least). Do you genuinely believe people would simply accept this change? There wouldn’t be protests the very next day? People wouldn’t vote for the yes-meat party immediately?

Any political action needs to be supported by the populace. Otherwise known as individual action.

Look at that, compared by calories, animals products still lose: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#explore-data-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-food

NOT A SINGLE PERSON asked you to live in the forest in a tent. Taking the bus, being vegan, buying second hand, and eating the rich are all things we can do, AND STILL LIVE A MODERN, COMFORTABLE LIVE.

I’m childfree, carfree, and vegan. Still manage to love live inside my non-tent in my non-forest city.

I feel like a holocaust survivor should have a way better idea of whether these things are comparable, rather than a non-vegan, non-holocaust survivor on the internet, no? Anyway, here’s more voices: Here are some quotes for you. From holocaust survivors and their relatives.

“I totally embrace the comparison to the Holocaust. I feel that violence and suffering of innocents are unjust. I believe that the abuse of humans and animals and the earth come from the same need to dominate others. I feel that I could not save my family, my people, but each time I talk about cruelty to animals and being vegetarian I might be saving another life. After knowing what I know about the Holocaust and about animal exploitation I cannot be anything else but an animal rights advocate.

-Susan Kalev, who lost her father and her sister in the Holocaust

“I believe in what Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote, ‘In their behavior towards creatures, all men are Nazis.’ Human beings see their own oppression vividly when they are the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought.” [tweet this]

-“Hacker,” Animal Liberation Front member & Holocaust survivor

“What do they know—all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world? They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them [the animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.” [tweet this]

-Isaac Bashevis Singer, Yiddish author, Nobel Laureate, & Holocaust survivor

“I spent my childhood years in the Warsaw Ghetto where almost my entire family was murdered along with about 350,000 other Polish Jews. People sometimes will ask me whether that experience had anything to do with my work for animals. It didn’t have a little to do with my work for animals, it had everything to do with my work for animals.”

-Alex Hershaft, Farm Animal Rights Movement founder & Holocaust Survivor

“When I see cages crammed with chickens from battery farms thrown on trucks like bundles of trash, I see, with the eyes of my soul, the Umschlagplatz (where Jews were forced onto trains leaving for the death camps). When I go to a restaurant and see people devouring meat, I feel sick. I see a holocaust on their plates.” [tweet this]

-Georges Metanomski, a Holocaust survivor who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

“I dedicate my mother’s grave to geese. My mother doesn’t have a grave, but if she did I would dedicate it to the geese. I was a goose too.”

-Marc Berkowitz, Animal activist & survivor of Josef Mengele’s “twin experiments”

“In 1975, after I immigrated to the United States, I happened to visit a slaughterhouse, where I saw terrified animals subjected to horrendous crowding conditions while awaiting their deaths. Just as my family members were in the notorious Treblinka death camp. I saw the same efficient and emotionless killing routine as in Treblinka, I saw the neat piles of hearts, hooves, and other body parts. So reminiscent of the piles of Jewish hair, glasses and shoes in Treblinka.”

-Alex Hershaft, Farm Animal Rights Movement founder & Holocaust Survivor

“Jews have been, while animals still are, treated like nothing, as if their lives don’t matter. You can also compare the two holocausts this way. […] Go to the nearest cow or pig slaughterhouse and remove the animals and replace them with humans. You have now re-created Birkenau.”

-Gary Yourosky

It’s 90 billion every year. If their suffering is 15000 less significant, that’s one holocaust a year, every year, since many years. Why are you using Shoah, if holocaust is so obviously only one thing? And why are the voices of holocaust victims/survivors/relatives totally fine to silence? Many have made that comparison, shouldn’t they know best whether it’s comparable???

You are correct however that this argument is utterly stupid and useless to make, esp. online, where there is zero context.