167
Changing Your Diet Is 'Number One' Way To Help The Planet, Woody Harrelson Says
(plantbasednews.org)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
167 points (88.5% liked)
Vegan
1854 readers
101 users here now
A place for solarpunks working toward a world without speciesism
Rules
- This is not a place to debate veganism
- There is no place for (carnist) trolls
- No unsolicited promotion of commercial products
- No speciesism
- No promotion of violence in any way
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Only thing you said that's close to correct. Don't be pretentious.
Humans are omnivores. Eating meat is okay. If you wanna discuss the ethics of end-user life choices under late-stge capitalism in a food desert, that's fine, but don't sugar coat your morals and shove them down my throat. Just don't eat meat for yourself, and be the change you want to see in the world. If you're doing it so you can tell others what to do, or that they're not as good as you because they don't do what you do, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons.
I don't have to blame big oil, I can blame the rich people exploring capitalism. They're the reason all the otherwise affordable stuff is expensive. Single-mom Susie and hunter Dave feeding their family are not the problem. Capitalism is the problem, and the rich people want to keep getting richer.
They're blaming the poor with a baited line, and you swallowed.
Yelling omnivores is exactly as stupid as conservatives talking about this or that being natural or unnatural.
And in socialism, the exploitation of the planet for meat production didn't happen? I'd love to see any sort of data on that.
Finally, you likely pretend to be smart, at least much smarter than all the capitalism fans. Yet, you lack any and all concept of the material reality of meat production, or most production while we're at it. Meat production IS unsustainable at anywhere close to the amount we have today. Throw in environmental and worker protection, and you'll eat meat like caviar.
BTW, if in your dream worker collective, everybody votes to keep polluting the earth because they just can't give up meat, do I then get to have morals?
I never said socialism was better, and I never said i was an omnivore. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like you're changing what I said in your mind so you can win an argument we aren't actually having.
If you want to discuss what I was trying to say, try this: I believe that the production of animal products for consumption inherently creates emissions and causes environmental damages that come as part of the production process. The owners of these businesses receive compensation for the production of this product. I believe that the people who own businesses and receive this compensation are the ones who should be responsible for the emissions and damages caused by their businesses, not the people who consume their products.
Eating meat isn't the problem, and therefore not eating meat will not solve the problem. Unless, of course, you can somehow convince the population of the world to stop consuming meat, which sounds rather idyllic. Veganism can, however, have numerous health benefits. And if you don't like animals dying just so you can eat, then boy do i have a diet for you!
The reason people say that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism is because capitalism is exploitative by nature. Any time you consume something produced in a capitalist market, you are incentivizing exploitation. That is a value we have to compromise on to some degree or other in order to live within a capitalist market system.
I definitely didn't say socialism was any better.
If you want to disagree with any of that, we can discuss it. But i was already an asshole to rbn yesterday and I don't want that happening again, either direction. So if you're not going to discuss my actual opinion, then just don't bother at all.
If billions of people on the planet want to eat animal products, this inevitably causes significant harm to the nature, the animals and ourselves (global warming, pandemics etc.). Just because our species lived off meat in the past (with way less individuals) that doesn't mean we can and should continue like this.
The consumption of animal products isn't the problem.
It is the exploitation of the production for profits, which is not a choice of the consumer. This is what causes the problems in nature: increases in greenhouse gasses like methane and the inability of our planet to re-uptake carbon through the reckless destruction of carbon locking plant life environments like oceans and forests, etc all.
You can point fingers at people who want to eat meat all you want but personal responsibility is incapable of balancing out the atrocities that are rewarded thru capitalism. This is intentional, and it is being perpetuated by the ones being rewarded for it. The rich.
If you think for one minute that not eating animal products is going to resolve these issues, then you're deluding yourself.
There is nothing wrong with not eating animal products, if you can afford to live like that. But be honest with yourself about the realities that others experience; both those who can't afford to or just don't want to live like that, and the ones exploiting the world's resources for personal gain. There is a huge difference in culpability between these groups.
Greenhouse gases aren't created through exploitation, but by the pure existence of the animals. Even if we hypothetically held all animals under perfect conditions (which is impossible anyhow due to lack of land and ressources), it doesn't significantly reduce the greenhouse gases. If you want to lower the emmissions, people must lower and ideally stop the consumption.
I don't fingerpoint at omnivores. I fingerpoint at people who claim that people consuming animal products is only the fault of some third party rich people. We know that veganism helps the planet in many aspects. If you decide to live different that's OK, but it's your choice.
Unless you're a Mongolian shepard in an area where soil and weather allow nothing but grass and goats or you live off food donations only, that's not true. For people who buy their food in supermarkets, veganism isn't more expensive than an omnivore diet. If you live off basic ingredients rather than comfort food, it's usually rather cheaper.
If I stop eating meat will you force others to stop too?
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. First I don't want to do that and even if I wanted, I don't have any power over people.
If you genuinely consider to stop or reduce eating meat, I'd highly appreciate that! :)
This is the most obtuse statement you could possibly make for your argument. Exploitation of resources is the single biggest cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the world today. You clearly lack an understanding of the causes and sources of greenhouse gasses.
These are mutually exclusive statements. One cannot be true while stating the other at the same time.
This^ is the beginning of one of the most privileged, bigoted, ignorant, vapid, dishonest, and ridiculous statements you've ever uttered in your life.
Blaming individual people again for costing themselves too much by trying to be comfortable. Yet still unwilling to blame the groups who literally destroy the world to enrich themselves off it's resources and rob us of our future in doing so... financially, environmentally, spiritually, physically. All so they can add another decimal point to their uncountable dragon's hoard office wealth.
This exploitation is the cause of almost all of our problems, and it isn't perpetuated by consumers. It is perpetuated by the elite and propaganda that people like yourself regurgitate that puts the onus on the poor, and allows you to live guilt free in some ideal fantasy in your own head because you're doing your part and everyone else just needs to live by your rules.
You sound like a corporate shill. A capitalist apologist. An entitled individual of privilege who lacks empathy and culture, but not lacking in the time and money to go to nice grocery stores for ingredients you can craft into healthy, balanced, wholesome meals.
Regardless of who you are versus who you sound like, you are incapable of making reasonable arguments. Best of luck convincing people of your opinion when you can't see where they're coming from. Have a nice day.
I think it was very clear from context they were talking about exploitation of animals, not resources in general.
There are many humans on this planet. If a majority of these humans consumes animal products as they do today this means massive greenhouse gases. If you see a way to strike out the emmissions without striking out production and consumption - please enlighten me.
They aren't.
If you want to lower emmissions from animal agriculture, you have to reduce animal agriculture. As an intermediate step you may have some options to switch to smaller animals such as insects instead of larger animals. But as acceptance of insect food is much lower than vegan food, I see little sense in pursuing that strategy.
I don't think bad of people for being omnivores. That's the traditional way how humans lived forever. People are used to consume animal products and it's hard to break with habits. Not everyone has the mental capacity to do so, people have other priorities in life. That's fine for me.
But if someone else is running around saying 'consuming animal products is not problematic, it's all about the rich!' then that's incorrect from my perspective and I want to point that out.
I literally wrote in my initial post that 'there are many good reasons to blame rich people'. The fact that many rich people have a negative impact on our society and planet, ...
Especially in a topic like veganism I can't see an intrinsic motivation of 'the rich elite' to force animal products on the people. You can be rich by selling meat or you can be rich by selling tofu. Selling vegan alternatives at a large scale to the masses would probably even lead to higher profits as the production is cheaper.
Veganism isn't about being morally inferior. A moral lifestyle has numerous aspects, veganism is just one aspect. Being a good person is not limited to veganism or trying to protect the environment in general. It's not about rating people against each other. Yet, it's absolutely fair to say from my perspective that veganism can do a lot of good for the world: reduce CO2 and methane emmissions, lower the risk of famines, reduce animal harm, reduce deforestation and land use, lower the risk of pandemics and resistent germs, get rid of the horrible working conditions for factory workers in the animal industry and many more.
All humans just going vegan at once is completely delusional. But every single person helps, even if it's just lowering the consumption a bit helps.
And my point is that it is absolutely in the power of each individual to take these small steps. If you want it, no rich person can hinder you from that.
Major parts of your post are personally attacking and insulting me. That's not necessarily what I'd consider a healthy debate. But unfortunately it seems to be a very emotional topic I guess.
I apologize, I was being an asshole. I disagree with a majority of your arguments, but i was very inconsiderate in presenting my own. I genuinely hope I didn't ruin your day with my attitude
It's OK. I know, it's an emotional topic and I appreciate that - even in disagreement - you took your time to reply.
-I'm not personally attacking you, and I'm not insulting you. If you are feeling attacked or insulted, then maybe that part of what I'm saying is just ringing truer than you like.
-People eating animal products doesn't cause greenhouse gasses any more than people eating high protein vegan diets. The greenhouse gasses are from people mass producing the animals. Is this something we can agree on?
-You said you weren't blaming omnivores, but then said that people eating animal products needs to stop. That is literally you blaming the people eating animal products. I didn't say you were persecuting them, but you are saying they need to stop doing what they're doing in order to fix the problems, as you see it. Is this also something we can agree on?
-Individual consumer food choices are not your business or your right to judge. If you aren't having the problems they're having or living their lives, then that's good for you, but don't present yourself as the arbiter of proper food morals. That is not how morals work. it is unethical for you to tell people what morals they should have, especially for their food. This type of behavior is privilege and entitlement personified. Can we also agree on this?
-i never said everything every rich person said is wrong. I said not to trust them or their propaganda. There is plenty of good reason, which you seem to agree with, to not trust them. Am I mistaken on your perspective?
-Do the rich people or the poor people own the means of production for the animal agriculture infrastructure? If it's the poor people, then i agree with you that they need to make different choices. If it's the rich people, perhaps you should reconsider who is really at fault for producing the animals that produce the greenhouse gasses. Unless, of course, they are spending their profits from their enterprises rehabilitating the environment that they are capitalizing on to generate their wealth... boy, I thought there was another word for personal gain at the expense of others. Exploitation or something?
-I do agree with you that veganism could do a lot of good for the world. I just disagree that it would be right, proper, or "moral" in all situations. However, exploitation is absolutely unethical in all circumstances. Is this something we both agree on?
-Veganism isn't about morally superiority, but you are using it that way with your arguments. Just look at how you consider people to be not of the proper "mental capacity" if they don't make that change. Is this something you mis-stated?
Hard disagree. If you grow lentils, beans, nuts etc. locally, it means close to zero emissions. If you produce meat, eggs, milk etc. locally, it still means massive emissions. Emissions from transporting non-local stuff you have in both cases, but also here vegan alternatives tend to score better because transporting 1 kg of soybeans for human consumption is emitting less than transporting 5-10 kg of food for the livestock and transporting 1 kg of the final meat.
Yes. I just wanted to highlight that in terms of greenhouse gases the root cause isn't cruelty, exploitation etc. If there is a small romantic farm with just a handful of goats the emissions per kg of goat meat will be not necessarily lower than in factory farming. Maybe you can cut back a bit on transport emissions and reduce cruelty, but land use, deforestation, methane etc. will be still problematic. If you scale down factory farms and fully compensate the production with small scale farms, it won't help much. If we scale down factory farms and lower the overall production, then the effect kicks in. And if we lower the production that 100% means that someone has to lower their consumption. And from my perspective, this should be ideally voluntarily by people going vegan or vegetarian or flexitarian etc. (option A). If we lower production without voluntarily cutting back on consumption, it means that that poorest folks are forced to cut back by the market as the prices will rise and they simply can't afford it (option B). In my world view I prefer option A.
To be precise, I said 'If you want to lower the emmissions, people must lower and ideally stop the consumption.'
That's not blaming someone, but pointing out a hard physical causality. It's like 'if you want to reduce the water usage of private swimming pools, you have to reduce the number and/or size of the pools'. That doesn't mean 'people with pools are bad people'. But if you say 'in area X there's a water shortage' then 'reducing swimming pools in area X' may be part of the solution.
As said, I don't judge anyone for being an omnivore. I completely acknowledge that being omnivore is like the default setting for human's in today's society.
Still I think that morally good behavior can be measured - at least to some degree - objectively. And as said, being a good person has hundreds of aspects. For example I would consider volunteering as firefighters as morally good behavior. They risk their own lives for the benefit of society. That doesn't mean that I condemn everyone who is not a firefighter or who doesn't risk their life for others. A single parent who works three jobs to allow for their children a better future is morally good. Also there, I don't judge single parents who aren't willing or capable of that level of self sacrifice. Taking mindful decisions when grocery shopping is also an aspect of moral behavior. I don't say if it's more or less important than other things. But it's something everyone theoretically could do. And to emphasize that again: my original argument was not about whether or not people should go vegan. I was just saying that non-vegan diets aren't forced on the people by the rich.
With that statement I didn't mean to say that non-vegans are stupid. I think that I mean something similar as when you said 'you aren't having the problems they're having or living their lives'.
If someone is struggling in their lives, for instance as they are a single parent and working three jobs, I completely see that they don't have the mental capacity to make informed food choices, learn new recipes, find new food that your children like etc. My point wasn't about insulting anyone, just to acknowledge that people can have other priorities than veganism and that's OK.
You are correct, I was being an asshole. I own rbn a genuine apology...
It happens to the best of us. Good on you for accepting the mistake and trying to make amends. I hope they accept the apology whole heatedly :D
Absolutely. But that practical reality doesn't substantiate the insufferable moral superiority vegans are addicted to.
Practical veganism doesn't finger wag because practical veganism understands how unproductive that is.
The only serious vegans are the ones who advocate for lab cultured proteins. But those are few and far between.