Maybe just my US bias but it certainly feels like there should be >1% pet attributed biomass. If humans are 30+% then that’s only 1 pet per 10 people assuming the average pet(s) weigh 1/3rd the weight of a human. Feel free to correct my arbitrary numbers though.
I’m just inventing numbers on the spot, but I’d guess the average human at about 60 kg. There are more adults than children and the obesity rates are higher than ever. The average cat is about 4 kg, I looked that up. That’s one cat for every 2 humans to get a full percent.
Well, that’s why I said “consider going vegan”. If 1 day is your best, then so be it. I can’t force anyone to do anything, but ideally everyone would do his best. But still, you gotta mention the best outcome or people who could still do better become complacent - the same way some vegan have become complacent because “being vegan is enough” despite being otherwise terrible for the environment.
Suggesting people to go vegan for 1 day isn’t meaningful change.
Why tell someone to be perfect for 1 day instead of being imperfect, but better for the rest of their lives?
People can make a much bigger difference if they started small like having one vegetarian meal a week. When you give small goals, people are more inclined to fulfill them and in turn, they are more likely to keep improving themselves.
I used to eat meat basically every single meal. Then I started small, had vegetarian dinners once a week. That was achievable, so I started doing lunch too. Next thing you know, I’m eating about 30% the meat I used to, and when I do it’s usually chicken or seafood.
And it doesn’t stop there.
My point is, if you want to inspire meaningful change in others, give them actionable goals. Don’t ask people to quit cold turkey because that seldom works.
1 day as in 1 day a week, I was agreeing with your proposed meatless mondays being great change for some people. I can’t spell out the ideal setup for everyone - if they are interested, but cannot achieve the ideal, it is on them to evaluate how close they can get. If we all only talk about the bare minimum, people won’t got beyond it which sucks too.
Good enough absolutely can be the enemy of perfect. For example if you care about the environment getting rid of cars is one of the most important things that can be done. Electric cars just make it harder for cars to be eliminated.
That’s black and white thinking and a common pitfall of internet ideologies that aren’t actionable.
If you want people to get rid of cars, you first need better zoning laws, higher density living, more mixed use development, accessible public transit, and better cycling lanes and bike parking, and more.
Saying ‘just get rid of cars’ isn’t grounded in the reality of how inaccessible places are in countries with car dependency and shit urban planning.
It’s an example of good being the enemy of perfect. Replacing all the cars on the road with tesla’s isn’t ever going to get rid of cars. In fact it’s going to continue to discourage any of the societal changes required to reduce car dependency. So with electric cars we still get all the shit car-dependency gave to us. So our zoning laws will still be fucked because people are encouraged to buy new cars. We have lower density living because people need to park (and charge) their electric cars. New neighbors are still built with transit via electric cars as the primary transit option. Public Transit is never developed because now more money has to be spent on roads to support the 2-3x heavier electric cars.
There is no world where electric cars decrease car-dependency.
Add comment