I dont need specifics because the proof is already there that whatever is being done now isnt working. Just like you argue that efforts to reduce animal consumption are proven futile by the increase in animal consumption year over year.
I think you’re mixing up the means with the end. if your goal is to reduce animal product production, you need to go where animal products are produced and stop it. if your goal is to reduce pollution, go to where pollution is produced, and stop it. but simply stopping consumption, on an individual basis, isn’t going to do it.
Its just as unrealistic that one person affects global pollution as much as it is unrealistic that one person go and personally stop the pollution at the source, isnt it?
It seems like you are arguing noone should do either direct or indirect action, since neither is feasible on an individual basis.
Its just as unrealistic that one person affects global pollution as much as it is unrealistic that one person go and personally stop the pollution at the source, isnt it?
no, one person can shut down a pipeline. it’s just a valve you can turn off.
You know thats absurd or else people would be doing it. Its not just a valve, and its not out in the open with no protections. My cousin used to guard the Alaskan pipeline. How do you suppose I go and affect that without getting shot?
Correct!
I always am
I found something similar to our vegan debate! Polution!
Its ever increasing year over year, but efforts to reduce pollution have reduced the rate of increase.
Would you argue that since pollution increases year over year that we should abandon our current efforts as its clear they aren’t working?
we should do things that are effective at tackling our problems. your question is too broad to answer with any more specificity.
I dont need specifics because the proof is already there that whatever is being done now isnt working. Just like you argue that efforts to reduce animal consumption are proven futile by the increase in animal consumption year over year.
I think you’re mixing up the means with the end. if your goal is to reduce animal product production, you need to go where animal products are produced and stop it. if your goal is to reduce pollution, go to where pollution is produced, and stop it. but simply stopping consumption, on an individual basis, isn’t going to do it.
Its just as unrealistic that one person affects global pollution as much as it is unrealistic that one person go and personally stop the pollution at the source, isnt it?
It seems like you are arguing noone should do either direct or indirect action, since neither is feasible on an individual basis.
no, one person can shut down a pipeline. it’s just a valve you can turn off.
You know thats absurd or else people would be doing it. Its not just a valve, and its not out in the open with no protections. My cousin used to guard the Alaskan pipeline. How do you suppose I go and affect that without getting shot?