The point you seem to be missing is if they can't sell as much meat they won't produce as much. So the most the consumer can do is stop eating meat; when sales go down, production will have to follow.
Meat-eating has a heavy cultural component and industry follows culture, but the problem is that industry also tries to create culture to grow, it's the way capitalism works. So as a consumer in the age of information you have to be hyper aware of your own personal culture, and see how much your actions are a result of your own convictions versus effective advertising and indoctrination from your environment, family, etc.
Ok, I think you're not getting my point. One person cutting meat, will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases by x amount. This is the action a single person has on the earth. A fortune 500 company like let's say Walmart, deciding to turn a single store to green energy is going to save a hell of a lot more. And that's the decision of a single person.
So let's instead of concentrating on convincing 7 billion people to stop eating meat, convince 500 people (CEOs of the fortune 500) to do their part to reduce energy usage or switch to green sources. Not only will it save the company money in the long term, but for the individual it will actually cost them money.
But no CEO wants to have a quarter of reduced profit building green, even if it leads to decades of increased profit. And that's the main issue. Short term profit is all publicly traded companies care about.
I don't think it has to be a choice and both actually need to happen. It sounds like you just want to continue eating meat despite everything you know.
Also the ethics of killing sentient creatures for the pleasure of taste aside, the problem is one, as you said of economy and scale of industry, which compounds both the natural effects and the cruelty, to not only the slaughtered but the slaughterer and the consumer too. What we're both saying is the capitalist system is inherently shit for our environments, but I believe that killing animals for our pleasure is also bad for our psyches.
I'm saying what is the most efficient way to save the planet. If you convince 500 people to stop eating meat vs. convince 500 CEOs to reduce wasting energy and generating pollution. Which one is likely to be helpful? I can guarantee that convincing 500 people to stop eating meat isn't going to have any impact on climate change at all. Even 500 million switching away from meat wouldn't have the same impact as 500 CEOs. Concentrate on the things that are both impactful and possible.
The point you seem to be missing is if they can't sell as much meat they won't produce as much. So the most the consumer can do is stop eating meat; when sales go down, production will have to follow.
Meat-eating has a heavy cultural component and industry follows culture, but the problem is that industry also tries to create culture to grow, it's the way capitalism works. So as a consumer in the age of information you have to be hyper aware of your own personal culture, and see how much your actions are a result of your own convictions versus effective advertising and indoctrination from your environment, family, etc.
Ok, I think you're not getting my point. One person cutting meat, will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases by x amount. This is the action a single person has on the earth. A fortune 500 company like let's say Walmart, deciding to turn a single store to green energy is going to save a hell of a lot more. And that's the decision of a single person.
So let's instead of concentrating on convincing 7 billion people to stop eating meat, convince 500 people (CEOs of the fortune 500) to do their part to reduce energy usage or switch to green sources. Not only will it save the company money in the long term, but for the individual it will actually cost them money.
But no CEO wants to have a quarter of reduced profit building green, even if it leads to decades of increased profit. And that's the main issue. Short term profit is all publicly traded companies care about.
I don't think it has to be a choice and both actually need to happen. It sounds like you just want to continue eating meat despite everything you know.
Also the ethics of killing sentient creatures for the pleasure of taste aside, the problem is one, as you said of economy and scale of industry, which compounds both the natural effects and the cruelty, to not only the slaughtered but the slaughterer and the consumer too. What we're both saying is the capitalist system is inherently shit for our environments, but I believe that killing animals for our pleasure is also bad for our psyches.
I'm saying what is the most efficient way to save the planet. If you convince 500 people to stop eating meat vs. convince 500 CEOs to reduce wasting energy and generating pollution. Which one is likely to be helpful? I can guarantee that convincing 500 people to stop eating meat isn't going to have any impact on climate change at all. Even 500 million switching away from meat wouldn't have the same impact as 500 CEOs. Concentrate on the things that are both impactful and possible.