• markr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m in the road kill is vegan camp, so sure after Winnie croaks chow down.

    • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t roadkill another symptom of human cruelty, i.e. building roads and cars, creating a death trap that cuts through eco systems? The only real difference is that roadkill exists because of carelessness rather than intention.

      • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Roadkill is a side effect of our advancement as a civilization. Unfortunately there is no way to avoid using cars or transportation if you want to keep living in our society.

        Roadkill is akin to crop deaths, a side effect of our advancements. No other way to keep our society, but animal farming can be completely avoided and it’s easy and cheap once you get to it.

        • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          At this point, the number of cars is about as disconnected from human progress as the consumption of animal products is. Much like we could easily remove the majority of animal product consumption, we could also remove the majority of cars and car miles.

          • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Being vegan requires only to change your buying choices. What your’e suggesting requires one to plant/locally source everything you consume, work close to your home, and completely change your means of transportation.

            Veganism is about not exploiting animals as practicable and possible. Which one do you recognize is practicable and possible for most humans?

            • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I am saying reduce the number of cars, but not to zero. I’d guess that in developed nations, maybe 20% or 30% of cars are actually needed (obviously depending on the country and the local level of car use). Similarly, some percentage of animal products is actually useful even in developed nations (for now), e.g. for pregnant women or people with weird allergies.

              And of course, society needs to support lifestyle choices for them to be viable. That’s the same for veganism and a life without a car.

              • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I believe we should tackle the problems we can solve right now, if you can stop using cars and source locally, that’s great.

                Most of us can already change to a vegan lifestyle and stop contributing to intentionally killing animals that don’t want to die. Once most people get onboard with that, then we should address accidental deaths.

              • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Using fur instead of most plastic fabrics is the environmental choice. As an environmentalist, Fur/Leather are the best choices for clothing.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m all about human advancement, but nothing about cars is required. If it were trains, sure I’m with you.

          • Jolteon@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Train networks good enough for people to travel wherever they want are difficult on the scale of large countries like Canada, the US, and Russia.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Incorrect. The US was built on passenger rail travel. It just wasn’t as profitable as freight and also once cars started becoming a thing then car interest groups started fucking things up to make more money.

            • markr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              We had a world class transcontinental rail system that was stunningly expansive. Much of it, especially the branch lines that went just about everywhere people built towns and cities, has been abandoned, sold, or converted to bike paths. Now we have basically a freight only system with near zero branch service, and some local and inter-city rail transit that is utterly shitty by developed world standards.

          • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “Nothing about cars is required”

            ho boy you’ve obviously never lived anywhere super rural. When the nearest house is 15 miles away, you need some form of transportation better than a bike.

            This is a very “never lived anywhere but the city” take

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I guess rural living didn’t exist between 1900 and the beginning of human civilization did it? Because this is a very “ignorant of history and can’t imagine an alternative” take, which doesn’t reflect well upon you.

              • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lol and things took exponentially longer and had a massive time investment to go anywhere.

                Don’t get me wrong I’m not big on car centric design, but pretending personal transportation isn’t and hasn’t been important is just ignoring the practicality of the world.