• 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 4th, 2026

help-circle



  • nooch@lemmy.vgtoSocialism@lemmy.mlSocialism or extinction
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    My issue with the framing is that it centers extinction as something to avoid. Non-existence by definition is not an issue for anyone. It’s the barbarism and total collapse that could lead to it would be an issue for the billions of people leading to that collapse.


  • nooch@lemmy.vgtoSocialism@lemmy.mlSocialism or extinction
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Who gives a f about extinction? We should care about the real human beings that exist and will continue to exist under the inhospitable conditions created by climate change under capitalism, not about the continuity of the human species. Why need to change “socialism or barbarism”?











  • nooch@lemmy.vgtoVegan@slrpnk.netIndian food is saving so many lives
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    It’s way more sustainable and ethical (and possibly healthier too) to take b12 supplements (even if they’re not sustainably produced) than any amount of animal flesh (other than roadkill I guess).

    • b12 deficiency is widespread even among meat eaters
    • b12 is generally supplemented in animal feed or the animals themselves are supplemented. Skipping the middle man is clearly more sustainable.
    • If the animals are not supplemented, you can’t know if you’re avoiding deficiency. Furthermore a tiny amount of a vitamin (milligram or microgram order of magnitude) takes way fewer resources to produce than 500g of meat/fish.
    • no matter how “humanely” they treat the animals they still get killed, unlike with the supplement. For dairy and eggs the slaughter is more indirect but it is still a fact that animals in the industry end up getting killed.
    • In terms of sustainability, it doesn’t matter that much if a product is local, the most impactful thing is the mode of production or the product itself (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain)

    I agree with your overall point that from a population perspective it’s way more practical and impactful to change as many diets as possible instead of focusing on changing diets to 100% plant-based. And I think we should focus on that, broader society interventions instead of advocating for individuals to change their diets.

    But if someone who reads this is facing the choice of taking a supplement versus some animal flesh, there is no ethical or sustainability grounds for choosing the flesh. Also probably no health grounds unless there are compounding issues (eg deficiency + allergies, interacting conditions, etc). I focused on B12 but this applies to many nutrients.

    It’s just not true that a tiny amount of animal flesh will spare you deficiency. It’s also not true that deficiencies are “tough to avoid” on a plant-based diet, especially protein deficiency.